A conundrum

From the Gatestone Institute comes an interesting article, one authored by Judith Bergman.

She poses the questions whether: (a) is it not time to review priorities in regard to citizenship for those who have chosen to fight against those countries whose citizenship they hold; (b) whether it it is time to rethink the idea, as enshrined in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which prohibits governments from revoking a person’s nationality if it leaves them stateless; and (c) that a terrorist is a poor, traumatized victim who needs help – which seems to be a recurring theme among European politicians – because he/she has a ‘right’ to that citizenship. But what about the rights of the poor, traumatized citizens who elected these politicians and who suffer from the actions of those who abrogated their citizenship in order to kill it?

Underlying all the above – and not to be forgotten – is, of course, the question of ‘rights’; and in this regard it must surely also raise the question of continued participation in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Refugees, and also the modification or withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. It can be argued that both the 1951 Convention and that of 1961, whilst enacted with the best of intentions was not — as is usual with most political decisions/agreements – not ‘thought through’ in regard to the possible end ramifications.

It can also be argued that during the June 2016 EU Referendum not one aspect of the preceding paragraph was discussed or even considered by any of those on either side – bar, to my knowledge,  one exception – namely FlexCit.

It will be acknowledged, by any reasonable individual, that currently decisions are taken by our politicians; and those decisions are taken without any consultation with the people of this nation. More importantly, under representative democracy we, the people, have no means whereby we can challenge and demand a rethink (or negation) of those decisions.

Over the last few days we have had two ex-Prime Ministers informing us that (a) a second referendum is necessary and that (b) Remainers must have a voice in Brexit. Where was the people’s voice when Blair and his cohorts decided to ‘throw open’ the UK’s doors to make the UK more multi-cultural , whilst ‘rubbing the rights nose in diversity’? Where was the people’s voice – ie a referendum – when the other ex-Prime Minister ‘railroaded’ through Parliament the Maastricht Treaty, a treaty of such gigantic proportions?

For how much longer will we continue to allow someone who has managed to surface from a pile of crud to attain the position of a despot in what is supposed to be a democracy? For how much longer will the electorate continue to allow their franchise to be reduced to voting for the remaining crud to fill the Green Benches? Perhaps the time has come wherein we must agree to pay more tax  to cover the cost of the ’embossed stationary’ they require for their ‘farsical’ behaviour?

The time has surely come whereby our democracy needs a ‘make-over’ – in which case those of who who agree should immediately head over to dd4uk.com.

Tsk – you still here?

 

 

2 thoughts on “A conundrum

  1. Broadly speaking the 1951 Convention of refugees has stood still while ‘the problem’ has over a very long time changed dramatically. If an auction house sells a work of art that’s fake it’s in serious trouble. But the fraudulent use of the term, ‘refugee’ is common from politicians. We recently had a UN official saying the only real solution was for nations to ignore the voters and accept all refugees. I think we should ignore the UN.

  2. The following joke recently sent to me by an old friend would seem apposite:-

    “While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, whose hand was caught in the squeeze gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

    Eventually the topic got around to politicians and their role as our leaders. The old farmer said, “Well, as I see it, most politicians are ‘Post Tortoises’.” Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post tortoise’ was.

    The old farmer said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s a post tortoise.”

    The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain. “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, he’s elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of dumb arse put him up there to begin with.”

    Best description of a politician I’ve ever heard.”

Comments are closed.