Skip to main content

Denmark - the first to start pushing the gates closed?

Yesterday (Thursday 26th January 2016) Denmark's parliament debated changes to their immigration laws.   Something that every sovereign nation has the right to do.   Whilst I appreciate that there is international law to consider, the socialist/liberal/politically correct brigade seem to feel that their point of view is the only one to consider, they do not want to look at the reality.    

The migrants that are coming in their droves to Europe need to be properly vetted and IF they are asylum seekers their needs should be met.   However, it is clear that they are not all seeking refuge from dire situations.    Many of the migrants are seeking a better life in Europe, seeking to benefit from the welfare payments on offer in various countries within the Union.

Denmark has every right to deter migrants from "cherry picking" countries according to what is on offer.   It is only fair that migrants who request asylum and therefore benefits from Denmark should have the same rules applied to them as to the Danish people.   The ceding of any valuables exceeding 1,340 euros, excluding wedding rings, is one of the changes they seek to make.   Various NGO's have decried the change in rules.   However, it is only fair to bring any benefits received by "foreigners" in line with those received by the Danes themselves, for example;

Lars Jensse*, has paid into the system and had a good life but he has fallen on hard times.   He has to prove he has nothing of value which could be sold to fund himself before he is allowed to have benefits from the State.

Mohamed Sadiq* rolls up to the borders and is granted asylum, before the law change he could have kept his gold jewellery and valuables he entered with etc...  BUT he would still have been able to claim benefits from the Danish state.

No citizens of any country in the world should be treated differently than anyone else applying to live in that country.    The citizens of Denmark have paid into their tax system, if the government want to apply the same rules to newcomers as to its citizens it is well within their rights to do so.

Nils Muiznieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe has stated that the Danish desire to change their immigration rules is incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR Bill of Human Rights (a direct quote of which is below)
   

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life
1.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
 
The Danes have moved to change their law to prohibit asylum seekers bringing their family to join them for three years, a change from the current one year rule.

 How is this infringing their rights?   They are not Danish citizens, they are not being denied the right to a family life (they can go back to their original countries whenever they want to be with their family).   

Let's break it down shall we?


  • There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law ( it has gone through parliament and has been debated and will be voted upon on 26th January 2016 when, if passed, it will become law)  
  • and is necessary in a democratic society (again debated and will be voted on in parliament [a democratic process])
  •  in the interests of national security (we know that ISIS have infiltrated these migrants and that certain migrants are lying about their nationality)
  • public safety (riots, sexual attacks on women perpetrated by some migrants)
  • or the economic well-being of the country (the Danes have already stated that they can't sustain the levels of benefit payments they are having to cover)
  • for the prevention of disorder or crime (cases of rape have increased, theft with violence has increased - far-right wing retaliation has increased)
  •  for the protection of health (Diphtheria has been diagnosed in Denmark for the first time in twenty years)  
  • or morals (European countries have predominantly democratic Christian values)
  • or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (who are the "others"? and do they respect the rights and freedoms of the European countries that have taken them in)
    •  
So to sum up, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Refugee Convention together with the UNHCR need to mind their own business and turn their attentions to countries whose Human Rights record leave much to be desired, Saudi Arabia perhaps?


 https://www.rt.com/news/329542-denmark-infectious-diseases-refugees/

 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 http://www.news24.com/World/News/denmark-moves-ahead-with-bill-to-curb-migrant-rights-20160121

 https://www.rt.com/news/329837-denmark-camps-refugees-village/

* not their real names.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Demographic suicide of Europe - Can it be reversed?

There is no doubt, to any rational, critical thinking person in the Western world, that Europe is going through as big a crisis as those of WW1 and WW2.   Unfortunately, the crisis we currently find ourselves in has been created or at least abetted by our own political leaders. There has been much talk of the Frankfurt School and the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, cultural marxism and the creep of Islamism within the West and Europe specifically. We are told that we need to import immigrants from the third world countries in order to fill the demographic hole created by Europeans not breeding sufficiently.   The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan openly advocates the destruction of the European race, or at the very least its dilution.   So for decades, various countries have made it fiscally less and less desirable to procreate.   The married person's tax allowance was removed from UK citizens way back in the nineties, child benefit, in countries where it is paid, has...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lord Taverne slams the will of the people.

Last night (13 March 2017) the House of Commons voted on the Bill to trigger Article 50 of the Lis bon Trea ty .   This Bill allows the government of the UK to set in motion the process of separation from the European Union, nine months after the people of the UK voted, via a referendum, to leave. Despite the best efforts of Gina Miller (a Soros stooge) and a cabal of self-interested parties to block the UK government from trying to exit without parliamentary approval; a move that was upheld by several self-interested High Court and Supreme Court Judges were proven fruitless.   In compliance with the court directive, the UK government tabled a Bill laying out the specifics of exiting the EU.   Passed by the House of Commons, it went up to the House of Lords, who rejected the Bill and returned it to the elected House with amendments.   The amendments were overturned by the elected House of Commons and it has since passed in the House of...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pot and Kettle!!!

It never fails to amaze me that some people in positions of power have the nerve to judge countries when their own home nation is not known for banging the same drum..... The UN Human Rights Chief, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein from Saudi Arabia, has drawn the world's attention to the horrendous behaviour of the Turkish Authorities.    He, quite correctly, has stated that the shooting at unarmed people protesting in Cizre, Turkey, was against their fundamental rights.   This throws up two issues for me; Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record and the fact that a Saudi citizen is the head of the UN Human Rights is laughable.    Does he criticise Saudi Arabia or are they off limits? Everyone has known about the flexible way that Turkey deals with the issue of human rights, but they have been assured that the EU will look again at their application to join....surely this should be the nail in the coffin of their ambition to join?   ...
Post a Comment
Read more