Denmark forces immigrants to hand over any valuables

[warpus]

I say it exists when you make it exist by demanding it and fighting for it.

How many people need to fight for it for it to exist, though? It seems impossible to draw a line in the sand in between "Didn't exist yet" and "Definitely exists now", under your definition.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that's right, because I don't think rights exist in the sense that people, houses and trees exist: saying that it exists is really to say that we should all support and enforce it. The statement is a bit like saying 'Smith is admired', I think. It's true if lots of people admire him, but a bit ridiculous to start tracing the exact point at which one chain of mind flips him from being unremarkable to being admired.

 

[Verbose]

How many people need to fight for it for it to exist, though? It seems impossible to draw a line in the sand in between "Didn't exist yet" and "Definitely exists now", under your definition.

How does that actually matter? They're emergent things, and man-made. If we stop working on them, they will go away obviously. If history tells us something, it's that "right" and "human" are contingent things, and certainly once upon a time did not exist as we now regard them. In time likely they will mutate beyond our recognition as well.

 

[Cheetah]

I say it exists when you make it exist by demanding it and fighting for it.

Isn't that agreeing with what I said?

 

[Agent327]

So let me get this right, because my German is not very good. In the article it reads he sexually assaulted a European woman? this muslim migrant so to speak, he touched her in an inappropriate manner...
...you ignore this.
and you even defend the attacks of islamic immigrants on Western women

...because of some dvd/vhs/bluray pornography fetish?

am I getting that right?

Actually, you are not.

You speak German, you have read the article and are actually defending this criminal man's sexual attack on a German woman?

No. I did point out that exhibitionism in itself is already a known issue. I'm not sure what either makes you think I'm OK with sexual harassment or 'defending this man's criminal attack'.

Political rulers in Denmark first have loyalty to its own people, the first obligation of the Danish government is the safety, free rights and security of its own people.
I think there are real genuine refugees out there, people with children and famalies who are fleeing the religious extremism of the middle east need help and they can be helped.
However
Bringing in thousands of radical people from the Middle East who believe in things like 'Sharia Law' is not going to improve the human rights of the Danish people or improve the rights of people in the Western world. There have already been many attacks, there is now a new 'game' of group collective rape or collective sexual harassment in crowds.These kinds of attacks were normally confined to the streets of the middle east but now this cultural 'sport' of Taharrush Gamea, the rape game, has been "played" all over Europe in recent months. The same collective molestation and rape game almost cost CBS correspondent Laura Logan her life in Tahrir Square on the night of the Muslim Brotherhood's victory. This Arabic gang-rape 'Taharrush' phenomenon which sees women surrounded by groups of men in crowds and sexually assaulted.

Copy/pasted elsewhere as well, I note. At any rate, 'the Danish people' already include Muslims and immigrants. You seem to overlook this obnoxious detail. As does this proposed valuables law, which equates Danish customs personnel with human smugglers, who also like to take peoples' valuables in exchange for their services.

Unfortunatley the mainstream media was not reporting all this and Merkel had chats with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to censor anti-immigration posts. It all started to leak out on blogs, tinfoil head sites like Alex Jones, it leaked out on youtube and on twitter, then reports started coming in from both left news media sources and right media sources, there were so many independent sources that it had to be true. It turns out Sweden was not just censoring the riots, stealing, the attacks and the rapes during New Years but Swedish media may have been censoring, burying news and deleting reporting for the past 2 years!!

Scandalous! By the way, how does one censor riots? They are pretty much a public event.

 

[NovaKart]

I have to agree with those arguing against complete freedom of travel. It would be nice in a perfect world but it's just not practical. In the past year there's been a huge number of refugees and migrants and that's with them arriving illegally paying thousands of dollars to smugglers and all the difficulty that involves traveling that way. If all people had to do was purchase a plane ticket and they could stay indefinitely what would that number grow to? 10 times the current amount? 20?

Maybe if European countries made it easier for people to apply as asylum seekers and refugees in the Middle East before arriving to Europe that would allow people to travel safer while also more easily determining who is a refugee vs economic migrant.

 

[Akka]

The distinction exists, I think, so that those fleeing a war zone get looked after first, while those who are already in a safe place and are merely looking to improve their economic situation can be branded with a much lower priority.

It's even more fundamental : refugees from places where their life are in danger have international protection and many countries have an obligation to allow them some rights of stay, while economic migrants can be turned away.

 

[Akka]

I just have an issue with stopping people from living somewhere they want to live. Free mobility is a right to me.

The point, however, is that freedom of travel is a human right - irrespective of if states see fit to restrict it.

No, there is no "right" to travel where you want and impose yourself on the place. You don't have some magical authority over a country which is not yours. A country belongs to the people from this country, and the actual right there is, is their right to accept OR refuse anyone for any reason they want.

 

[Flying Pig]

Tricky statement there. Does it belong to you more if you've got more generations of ancestors who have lived there? There are quite a few patches of this country - any public property, in fact, from which you can be forcibly evicted if somebody decides you're making a nuisance. When you say 'it belongs to the people', who actually gets to exercise ownership over it? How is that not simply a way of justifying that the government acts as if it owns the place? And if it is, what moral authority is there to keeping people out?

 

[Agent327]

No, there is no "right" to travel where you want and impose yourself on the place. You don't have some magical authority over a country which is not yours. A country belongs to the people from this country, and the actual right there is, is their right to accept OR refuse anyone for any reason they want.

Actually, that's incorrect. Unless that particular country does not subscribe the the UDHR. What you are expressing here is rather an opinion - which would only become a right (or rather privilege) if it is turned into a law. Opinions can become law if such a judicial process has been followed.

 

[warpus]

The UDHR only deals with the freedom of movement of a citizen inside of a country's borders, as far as I know.

 

[Agent327]

No, it does not. This was already discussed, but see art. 13 and 14: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

 

[Akka]

No, it does not. This was already discussed, but see art. 13 and 14: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

And from there I see :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." => so yeah, it's freedom of movement INSIDE a state.
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." => they have the right of asylum from persecution. Nothing says a country has to accept whoever just want to move there.

So yeah, I stand by my points.

And if it is, what moral authority is there to keeping people out?

Moral authority that it's their land and their country. Their home, their rules. In Rome, do as the Romans. What's hard to understand about that ?

 

[Flying Pig]

It's whose land? My house is my land; it doesn't belong to anyone else, even if they're British. Who gets to make the sort of decisions about a country that I can make about my house? You end up with 'the state', and often enough using that to justify treating the people who supposedly own the land as guests at best and trespassers at worst.

 

[innonimatu]

Moral authority that it's their land and their country. Their home, their rules. In Rome, do as the Romans. What's hard to understand about that ?

That's odd, coming from you.

Do you now think it was wrong to bomb serbia into leaving Kosovo, where a minority that was in places (in central/southern Kosovo, itself a small province of Serbia) a majority demanded that their own rules be the law of the land, against the wishes of the '"native" majority within the country? And had moved on to armed rebellion?

Do you think that Europeans (especially those in the BAlkans) remember very well this recent episode and that this may be a reason why they refuse to take in refugees from different cultural backgrounds?

It would be sween schadenfreude if Germany, France or the UK came to be bombed a few decades from now for the sake of granting a homeland to rebellions descendants of immigrants. We know it won't happen, the rebelliuon in Kosovo was supported becauxse it was a conviente escuse to cut a weaker but non-subitted country to pieces.

 

[Agent327]

I'd say it was a moral authority decision taken by the wrong podium: NATO.

And from there I see :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." => so yeah, it's freedom of movement INSIDE a state.
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." => they have the right of asylum from persecution. Nothing says a country has to accept whoever just want to move there.

You left out the bit of being free to leave a country. It's easy to 'stand by your point' when not reading very well; unfortunately, your 'point' is invalid. If people are free to flee from prosecution, but nobody accepts them, that's kind of pointless, don't you think?

Moral authority that it's their land and their country. Their home, their rules. In Rome, do as the Romans. What's hard to understand about that ?

Iran claims moral authority over its citizens, as do Saudi Arabia and IS. That's what you get when 'moral opinions' prevail over basic human rights. However, 'moral authority' is not a legal concept. Nor does it exclude human rights or allow a state to ignore human rights.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm going to speak up for moral authority: the fact that people can claim it to justify bad government doesn't mean that we don't need it to justify good government. You need something underneath the law, other than 'because it's the law', to say why people ought to follow it.

 

[Akka]

It's whose land? My house is my land; it doesn't belong to anyone else, even if they're British.

Actually it still belongs to your country and you can't just decide to secede. You've property rights on the part of the land you've bought, but they go only as far as your country decides they do.

That's odd, coming from you.

How so ? I don't support separatists on the whole, but I do support nation-states. This is not a new opinion.

You left out the bit of being free to leave a country. It's easy to 'stand by your point' when not reading very well; unfortunately, your 'point' is invalid. If people are free to flee from prosecution, but nobody accepts them, that's kind of pointless, don't you think?

You might then want to read well yourself before doing those kind of remarks, because that very part is actually treated in the quote you answer to.

 

[Agent327]

You might then want to read well yourself before doing those kind of remarks, because that very part is actually treated in the quote you answer to.

It says people have a right to leave their country (art. 13); it says people have a right to flee persecution (art. 14). Ergo, people have freedom of movement. What exactly is not clear?

I'm going to speak up for moral authority: the fact that people can claim it to justify bad government doesn't mean that we don't need it to justify good government. You need something underneath the law, other than 'because it's the law', to say why people ought to follow it.

A bit of a contradictory argument: which people have 'moral authority'? The ones following the law, or the ones breaking the law? The problem is with assigning some morality to law in the first place. That's not the principal purpose of law. Rather, it is to give rules for social behaviour. Now, you may not agree with some of these rules, and it is your right to object to them - in a legal way. In short, there's no way around the law, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[ori]

It says people have a right to leave their country (art. 13); it says people have a right to flee persecution (art. 14). Ergo, people have freedom of movement. What exactly is not clear?

The point were the right to enter any country is limited to political persecution - so no there is no freedom of movement into another country.