Jump to content

"Cancel Culture" Opinions?


RussTCB

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Some young kid's body was washed up on the coast of France yesterday? No problem whatsoever with labeling it a crisis. 

So why not change the asylum system so people can make an application without having first to be on UK soil? 

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't know you and Dazey support people traffickers? 

Fix the asylum system and the traffickers go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazey said:

So why not change the asylum system so people can make an application without having first to be on UK soil? 

Why don't you put up a migrant in your house? I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with wokery advocating opening our borders to illegal immigration provided these same people all open up their houses to house the migrants. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why don't you put up a migrant in your house? I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with wokery advocating opening our borders to illegal immigration provided these same people all open up their houses to house the migrants. 

That's just the laziest argument ever. If you don't want people to die fleeing war you should put them all up in your back bedroom or shut the fuck up? :lol: There's also nothing illegal about what these people are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great one for you. Because of Brexit the UK will actually lose the right to transfer migrants to other EU countries thus making it HARDER to deport anybody who does manage to make it here. But I'm sure that the people who voted to leave were well aware of the Dublin Regulation. :lol: 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers

Quote

When the Brexit transition period expires on 31 December, the government will lose the right to transfer refugees and migrants to the EU country in which they arrived, a cornerstone of the European asylum system known as the Dublin regulation.

Edited by Dazey
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dazey said:

That's just the laziest argument ever. If you don't want people to die fleeing war you should put them all up in your back bedroom or shut the fuck up? :lol: There's also nothing illegal about what these people are doing.

France is at war?

It is demonstratively illegal. Illegal immigration: in violation of the immigration laws of that country.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

France is at war?

It is demonstratively illegal. 

Demonstrate it then. What does it matter if France is at war or not? There is no legal requirement to seek solace in the first safe country despite what you may think and France processed something like 3 times the number of asylum applications as the UK last year. Also it's not illegal to enter the UK and claim asylum. That's just a fact, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Demonstrate it then. What does it matter if France is at war or not? There is no legal requirement to seek solace in the first safe country despite what you may think and France processed something like 3 times the number of asylum applications as the UK last year. Also it's not illegal to enter the UK and claim asylum. That's just a fact, sorry.

You are completely incorrect. The United Kingdom has legal migration and residency laws: these people, seeking highly exploitative people traffickers, are in violation of those laws in attempting to establish an illegal residence in said country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are completely incorrect. The United Kingdom has legal migration and residency laws: these people, seeking highly exploitative people traffickers, are in violation of those laws in attempting to establish an illegal residence in said country.

uVotgMG.jpg 

Quote

“The UK should not be regarded as a place where you can automatically come and break the law by seeking to arrive illegally. If you come illegally, you are an illegal migrant, and I’m afraid the law will treat you as such.”

Boris Johnson, 23 August 2019

 

In reference to migrants attempting to cross the Channel to get from France to the UK, Boris Johnson said “If you come illegally, you are an illegal migrant, and I’m afraid the law will treat you as such.”

This is not correct in all cases.

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/

 

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you had your own visa issues with the United States. You should then have elucidated that you cannot just enter the US and basically never leave, i.e., you should be aware you'd be classified as illegal if you proceeded to do as such. 

Just now, Dazey said:

uVotgMG.jpg 

 

''Coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened''.

They are coming from France!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are completely incorrect. The United Kingdom has legal migration and residency laws: these people, seeking highly exploitative people traffickers, are in violation of those laws in attempting to establish an illegal residence in said country.

Funnily enough your argument about them having to stay in the first safe country has been torpedoed by Brexit as stated above. As part of the EU we were able to negotiate with other member states to return refugees to the EU country the came from. After December 31st that's no longer the case. :lol:  

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Haven't you had your own visa issues with the United States. You should then have elucidated that you cannot just enter the US and basically never leave, i.e., you should be aware you'd be classified as illegal if you proceeded to do as such. 

''Coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened''.

They are coming from France!

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Funnily enough your argument about them having to stay in the first safe country has been torpedoed by Brexit as stated above. As part of the EU we were able to negotiate with other member states to return refugees to the EU country the came from. After December 31st that's no longer the case. :lol:  

Migration was simply not an issue for me in supporting Brexit. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Migration was simply not an issue for me in supporting Brexit. 

It's a pretty funny consequence though you have to admit? :lol: 

Farage is out and about on the beaches pointing at all the people in dinghys whom his actions have made it impossible to repatriate. :lol:

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazey said:

It's a pretty funny consequence though you have to admit? :lol: 

 

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Funnily enough your argument about them having to stay in the first safe country has been torpedoed by Brexit as stated above. As part of the EU we were able to negotiate with other member states to return refugees to the EU country the came from. After December 31st that's no longer the case. :lol:  

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html

None of what you posted removes the ''illegal'' status of both the method of migration and the migrant. E.g.,

Quote

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

None of what you posted removes the ''illegal'' status of both the method of migration and the migrant. E.g.,

 

Well if you go that way you're saying that every asylum seeker in the country is here illegally and that is demonstrably false. Fact is that once you land of these shores and claim asylum you are here legally and there is no other way to do it as you can't claim asylum if you're not in this country. My point was that if there was a way for people to claim from abroad there would be no incentive to try and get across the channel.

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Well if you go that way you're saying that every asylum seeker in the country is here illegally and that is demonstrably false. 

I certainly didn't say that! In fact I even pointed out above that there are legal asylum seekers.

So when are you going to house some asylum seekers Dazey? After all I'm sure you have the space, and you are such the eager advocate - such the good samaritan - more so than the majority of the country who elected a right-wing conservative government (the fact the government is a busted flush on this issue being neither here nor there)? When is this happening? Have you decorated their room yet?

More Waitrosey hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I certainly didn't say that! In fact I even pointed out above that there are legal asylum seekers.

I don’t get your point. How would you define a legal asylum seeker vs an illegal asylum seeker? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I thought (Brexit) Britain was this horrendously racist little island with few prospects, and that the EU was this benign peace loving progressive internationalist project which single-handedly erected world peace? Why are asylum seekers departing the latter (specifically France) for the former then? It doesn't make sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazey said:

I don’t get your point. How would you define a legal asylum seeker vs an illegal asylum seeker? 

Legal: one who formally applies for asylum in that country.

Illegal: one who violates that country's border, establishing illegal residency there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

By the way, I thought (Brexit) Britain was this horrendously racist little island with few prospects, and that the EU was this benign peace loving progressive internationalist project which single-handedly erected world peace? Why are asylum seekers departing the latter (specifically France) for the former then? It doesn't make sense!

What’s the difference between legal and illegal asylum seekers? 

Also many times more people do choose to stay in France. Last year it was roughly 120,000 vs approx 40,000 who chose to come to the UK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I dunno, its not an easy task, even from the nerdiest of nerds, to correctly ascertain the meaning behind a song.  Brixton has always suffered from a heavy police presence.  That whole kind of area.  Its famous for riots in the 70s and 80s, one of which was the reason for The Clash writing White Riot.  The Clash are a difficult thing to pin down.  I mean, what are they?  Their forays into reggae are loved by many but thought of as pretty naff by others, not least by John Lydon, a huge fan of reggae and someone thats very much against that sort of appropriation.  I like em personally, I think they have a charm to them, they are not authentic and they don't try to be authentic, they are a bunch of west/south London whiteboys doing a west/south London whiteboy take on reggae, its not like UB40 where they try to sound 'real'.  And this same sort of thinking applies to their class politics, which a lot of people got behind and a lot of people thought was naff.  The bordered on some pretty extreme left radical affiliations at the time, from the Italian Brigade Rosse, their support for the Sandinistas, their apparent support for Palestine, it was touchy ground and it didn't do them a lot of favours.  Suffice to say I think they talked about stuff that needed talking about, made you (or me anyway) think about things I perhaps ordinarily wouldn't've.  And they put their money where their mouth was too, they basically made zero money their entire career because they had to subsidize the releases of double and triple albums that they wanted kept down to minimal price for their fans out of their record advances and royalties. 

We live in such a racist society that supporting Palestine is considered radical :facepalm: So Im inclined to think its good for Lydon to think critically about pops appropriation of black culture(s). At the same time the Pistols kinda seemed to represent a 'back to the roots of rock n roll' kinda approach - they sound more like chuck berry and little richard then many in the years just before the Pistols. Some might say rock is appropriation? I suppose we all live in a constant web of contradictions. Its my opinion that many of those contradictions are imposed on us by having to exist in a capitalist/racist society - in that we are forced to navigate interactions with our fellow humans in a way that is mediated by the claims, structures and contradictions in the system. I think there is equal value in calling out things like appropriation and also accepting contradictions in a humble, gentle way. 

Thats my way of saying that while they are just human like us all, I like the Clash and their reggae stuff too!

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

But were they really revolutionaries?  Is pop music really the forum for revolution, when its all said and done?  I suppose it can be, of a sort...but I think its fair to be suspicious of bands that, for the price of an album, promise a brave new world.  And thats what is being sold isn't it, with notions of revolution etc.  Even after The Clash broke up and Strummer was into stuff like 'Rock Against the Rich', driving around in a double decker bus preaching class war...then going home to his house in Holland Park (one of the wealthiest areas of London).  Remember I adore The Clash and Strummer but these are things that are very difficult to ignore.

I guess they were just a product of their envoirnment and, musically (which is the only way that really matters when it comes to a band), they were always a reflection of the myriad of different sounds that surrounded them, they were creatively hungry and tried, through their music, despite their numerous inconsistencies, to send a message that spoke to the idea of a world where there was more class equality. 

Im a big believer in the power of folklore. I observe that cultures with stronger storytelling traditions usually are more successful in resistance. I think we in the west have largely disconnected from like, around the campfire folklore and legends. I think a band like the Clash kinda infuse culture with a bit of that? Much like Rage? In folk tradition many of Rages lyrics are basically ballads because they tell a story arch. 

I heard Tom Morello talk about how everyone should be resisting injustice from what ever their role in life is - from father to plumber to mechanic to engineer to store clerk. Be up on issues, find your place in addressing them. If that involves your work place, then so be it. Granted Morello might be biased coming from a band that split over anti capitalist ideology and then reunited for $14million. 

I think I share your prospective on them - a product of their environment. It was 'real' and instead of tying themselves in philosophical knots and purity testing they went ahead and put their thoughts to tape.

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Some of your Canadian lot were fucking fierce in that regard too, the extreme left type stuff I mean, speaking about punk bands here.  Gerry Useless from The Subhumans, he was a member of that terrorist group 'Direct Action', I'm sure you've heard about this, The Vacouver 5, they were urban guerillas who bombed some nuclear missile launcher thingies facility, they did like an actual bombing campaign in Canada in the 80s, scary stuff.  If you're looking for punks who really 'mean it maaaan' you need look no further than your own back garden.  They bombed that missile place, a bunch of porno places (feminist reasons), a hydro-electric plant (ecological reasons).  I got into Canadian punk through the reccomendations of a poster around here, really cool guy and there's like a wealth of fuckin' quality bands out of there and bands that like, you could argue there was a lot more consistency to a point of view of a lifestyle or a culture than you'll find in your Clashes or your Sex Pistolses, despite my love for the latter.

I love that you know them!!!

They would identify as Vanguardist. Meaning they wanted to inspire the people. Opposite of terrorizing the people. The Porno thing was maybe a bit less organized though. The Hydro plant was in solidarity with a strike, IIRC. Everyone Ive met is a sweet heart. I came super close to getting to doing a project with one of them! Like within an englishmens dick length of working together. Theyre more in the writing their second books phase of life now, of course.

Ive lived in houses that are tour stops for the DIY punk scene. Its cool to see people get plugged into the politics that way. And theres plenty of ferocious punk bands still being produced here! :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Legal: one who formally applies for asylum in that country.

Illegal: one who violates that country's border, establishing illegal residency there.

So how does one get into said country in order to apply legally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...