I've lately heard comments among people I know, and not much in the media in terms of a positive response from politicians towards the boatloads of drowning Libyan refugees.
"let them drown, it'll stop them coming over here and sponging off us" is the main attitude as far as I can see.
Just to remind anyone with that attitude that it was the West who agreed to remove the previous leader, carried out a bombing campaign and assisted the forces of so-called democracy, and then left leaving a political and social vacuum with a hands-up "your problem mate, we've done our bit."
My question is, should the eurozone be now morally obliged to do it's utmost to help refugees, or is the rich west free to do whatever it likes anywhere in the world to suit it's own purposes and not worry about consequences? Loaded question obviously....
There is no doubt that both Britain and the Eurozone needs to do something. There are thousands of refugees, many of them escaping religious persecution in Libya and Syria, who are willing to give up everything they have, and even risk their own lives, in the hope of finding a better home. I believe that there is a moral duty for the whole of Europe to allow safe passage to those who are fleeing. As is my understanding, many thousands of the migrants are in Italy after crossing the Med, and I think that the rest of Europe, including Britain and Ireland, should grant asylum to as many of those people who want to come and live here.
The worst thing about this whole business is the fact that so far this year, 900 people have already been killed crossing this year, with even more killed the year before making the crossing, yet not one political party has put their plight on their manifesto, have mentioned it in any of the debates (correct me if I'm wrong - I have the feeling that Natalie Bennett might have mentioned it in passing) or even seemed to acknowledge their existance until a few days ago, and press coverage has been scant despite the masses of people killed. The ironic thing was until Katie Hopkins opened her gob and penned that nauseating, horrific, inhuman piece (which I should point out, is more or less spelling out what the current British policy is towards those migrants i.e let them drown), it didn't seem to command any wider attention. I'm not going to go into the ins and out about why so many people had to wait until a noxious journalist showed her opposition to this before they started caring, but now that the wider world, and every major news organization has opened their eyes to the horrifying reality of those migrants making the crossing, I'm glad that she did.
This is what happens when Farage and the Daily Mail are allowed to dictate policy. Polls tell us that Cameron is seen as a strong leader. He is not strong at all. He just does what the Mail tells him to do. When Cameron dies, this should be his legacy. After all, the UK was instrumental in driving through this change in policy. I described the policy at the time as "Let them drown." I have been proved correct in the worst possible way.
The governments justification for this despicable policy is that it would discourage potential immigrants from trying to cross the Med. Clearly, the policy hasn't worked. It must be changed immediately.
Oops, loaded question.
The West helped in the civil war with the rebels, but the aftermath isn't its fault - it helped the people get what they wanted, freedom from the dictator.
Most of the refugees are not Libyan. They have already had a treacherous journey from their own country to reach Libya in the first place.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services