You must log in or register to comment.

BetweenTwoInfinites t1_jdrxffg wrote

Nice name for that ship. Louise Michel was a badass anarchist!


green_flash t1_jdsmwyx wrote

Badass indeed

> When Emperor Napoleon III and his army were captured by the Prussians in 1870, the French Third Republic was proclaimed in Paris. But the provisional government continued the war against the Prussians and a four-month siege of Paris resulted in bleak hardship. Parisians starved and froze to death. Some managed to save themselves by eating cats, dogs and rats. The government surrendered, but Michel and other Parisians had taken up arms and organised themselves as a National Guard. When the Paris Commune was proclaimed Michel was named head of the Women's Vigilance Committee and played a key role in initiating economic and social reforms. Michel pushed through the separation of church and state, initiated educational reforms and codified rights for workers. The reforms were not carried out due to the short duration of the Commune. When Michel was tried, she demanded to be killed by firing squad and proclaimed "If you let me live, I shall never stop crying for vengeance, and I shall avenge my brothers by denouncing the murderers". The military court refused to make her a martyr.

She was a feminist, too.

> Michel frequently spoke on women's rights from an anarchist perspective. She not only advocated education for women, but also that marriage should be free and that men should hold no property rights over women.


green_flash t1_jds2evt wrote

> The coast guard said it had ordered the MV Louise Michel ship to dock in Trapani in Sicily after it performed an initial rescue operation in Libya's Search And Rescue area. The ship instead went to assist migrants on three other boats in Malta's Search And Rescue area.

Doubt that will stand in court.

Sounds more like they were looking for some excuse to justify stopping the rescue ship, for political posturing.


Neuroprancers t1_jdsek9p wrote

That's the thing, Italy recently passed legislation (decreto ONG) that makes it illegal for rescue ships to take in people from more than one boat, and the rescue ships need to make a beeline for the nearest port, unless allowed on case-by-case basis.


green_flash t1_jdsjvai wrote

That clashes with International Maritime Law though. There is a duty to rescue.

> There is a duty pursuant to international law for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea.

We'll see, I guess.


djq_ t1_jdthewt wrote

Actually, it clashes directly with EU law, as did the sea watch ruling. Italy will loose this one in EU court.


Hapster23 t1_jduk62q wrote

In the meantime people are dying in the mediterranean because their rescue ship is seized by italian authorities. Fucked situation


Yog_Sothtoth t1_jdur5pi wrote

It's their goal, to make people die (so less migrants), while at the same time denying it.


Hapster23 t1_jduujxn wrote

That's not really something one can prove (that they want them to die) so I would avoid that kind of rhetoric since it doesn't add much to the conversation, other than polarising the issue. In reality it is a complex issue, since these countries have to bear the burden of all north African migration attempts. Their solution was to reduce the number of rescues by making rescue boats return to port, this in theory would mean the passage is more dangerous and thus disicentivize illegal migration, and thus less of a burden on these countries. Obviously reality is different, these people are fleeing their country because they would rather risk dying in the Mediterranean then continue living as they are, so this "solution" just leads to more deaths. Truth is that EU needs to help share the burden of these countries (some form of migrant relocation system based on populations etc) so then they cannot justify shitty laws like the above.


Yog_Sothtoth t1_jduvhre wrote

While I agree with you I have to point out this is a well established strategy, they did the same with unemployment benefits, the goverment campaigned heavily for its removal only to find out a lot of their supporters benefit from it so what are we going to do? Easy, you cannot refuse ANY job offer, not just about the money, but also location. It's ingenious, you can be offered a job 500km from where you live with a paycheck of 500€ and if you refuse you lose unemployment. No matter if you actually could live on it or not.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5w5h9 wrote

>Truth is that EU needs to help share the burden of these countries (some form of migrant relocation system based on populations etc) so then they cannot justify shitty laws like the above.

I agree, EU need to implemant a new relocation system based on population within africa first because africans migration into EU will be the biggest threat to European's politics in the future. If they act NOW, they can reduce that least until they find a better plan.

Africa is big, plenty of land. All they need to do is building many large cities in safe countries like Gabon, Botwana, Angola, Namibia (like the way chinese do with their ghost cities). Then bring skilled workers from around the continent to manage it. And then bring the refugees/migrants there to work and live in safe and stable environnement.

It will be a huge investment but much more beneficial in short and long term.

I doubt Europe will survive another migration crisis. I've seen many population around EU already prostesting against putting refugees/migrants into Hotel. France is burning, inflation... Italy voted a right wing, Greece is already overwelmed.

It's time for EU to have a PLAN and anticipate the problem before it come to its shores.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5zna3 wrote

EU have its own agenda. They only wanted the syrians refugees (and some libyan refugees) for their need of cheap labor not all refugees. EU even had Operation Sophia to rescue migrants for their aging population. Once they got what they needed, they stoppped the operation.

It was never about "good moral" nor "right thing to do". It's by interest.

So now, whoever try to get into the mediteranean sea, will have to face the consequences. Whatever they make it or not.


Neuroprancers t1_jdsml66 wrote

We make laws first and ask questions later ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdstac8 wrote

No we don't, that's what failed states, Russia and China do, we're better than that. Even ignoring the moral dimension, it's the rule of law that makes the EU and North America such destinations for tourism and investment.


Eptagon t1_jdsvxp9 wrote

> we're better than that.

Correction: we ought to be. In reality, we're not. At least not under the current government.


johndoe30x1 t1_jdsvm0g wrote

In the U.S. you can’t even ask the court if something is legal before the fact. You have to fuck around and find out. (Tax court is a notable exception to this)


snowtol t1_jduoooi wrote

To be fair, OP did state that this is how it works in failed states.


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdsvt3d wrote

Laws are all matters of public record, what are you talking about?


johndoe30x1 t1_jdswjdl wrote

Well then I guess we better get rid of all the appellate courts and the Supreme Court if the law is the law and there is no interpretation of matters of law! Seriously though, advisory opinions, reference questions, etc. do exist in some jurisdictions and not in others. I wonder if Italy is one such jurisdiction


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdswuqf wrote

In the US and EU at least all court proceedings are matters of public record, with rare exceptions such as rape shield laws and national security.


Noredditforwork t1_jdttrtb wrote

You are missing the distinction between codified civil law and common law.

Laws get written, then people try to find loopholes and beneficial interpretations, then judges decide if you get away with it.


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtvtxv wrote

Italy doesn't use common law, they use codified laws. 🙄


Noredditforwork t1_jdtvyjj wrote

You responded to a comment about US law which is derived from common law.

ETA: lol, blocked me because you can't read or accept a correction, what a twit.


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtw885 wrote

This is an article about Italy and Italian law, digressions by dafties aside.


Synkope1 t1_jdu7oz6 wrote

It's not a digression, YOU brought in North America to the discussion. And then when he started talking about US law, YOU engaged. Don't complain about digressions just because you lost an argument, it's embarrassing.


Neuroprancers t1_jdu4snx wrote

Many laws are passed that are later ruled unconstitutional and repealed, even in stronger democracies.

The particular type of legislation is a "Decreto legge", a fast-track with 1-year duration, which is quite abused by Italian governments. (EG the "milleproroghe", look it up for a failing state)

Also, Oxford comma.


S_A_N_D_ t1_jdt2rqn wrote

In general, local laws typically superseded maritime laws. Rarely however do local laws conflict in this regard, and usually it's local laws will be a more strict version of the maritime law (such as environmental restrictions). Where this might not hold up is if the vessel was in international waters (more than 12 NM from the Italian coast) then the Italian laws would and could not apply. Then it just becomes a question of access to Italian ports, which isn't guaranteed. I'm not sure how they could be fined however if they were not in Italian jurisdiction and didn't break any IMO law.


Neuroprancers t1_jdua4j4 wrote

The ship gets impounded as it docks in Italy.

Spain and France are too far, last time Italy forced a rescue ship to drop people in France, France threw a hissy fit and withdrew from some cooperation treaty, Malta refuses to do anything.


Everyday_Hero1 t1_jdtshqw wrote

Calling those 2 failed states is so stupid. Just because we dont like them, doesnt mean they are failed states.


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtvwf5 wrote

I didn't call them failed states, learn to read.


Everyday_Hero1 t1_jdtzhdz wrote

Oh so you are just putting them on the same level as failed states without ACTUALLY calling them failed states.

Makes much more sense........


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je60jni wrote

Wrong, EU and North America isn't a destination of tourism and investment because of rule of laws.

For tourism it would be non-industrial countries like Thailand, Phillipines, ..

EU is getting more tourism because of its OLD HISTORY and basically the origin of many invention, ideology, doctrine....NEVER BECAUSE OF THE RULE OF LAWS.

Investments? I would say asians countries is winning the investment category (from China to South East Asia).

Nobody care about EU's moral dimension other than those who want to benefit from it (migrants, workers and refugees) because they know the laws is weaker over there....and more welfare.


VeryQuokka t1_jdwem6f wrote

Italy's judicial system is that of a failed state. The country sent geologists to jail for failing to predict an earthquake, among other failures.


[deleted] t1_jdun21e wrote



green_flash t1_jdv29gv wrote

Don't spread misinformation. It's the Italian SAR that is responsible for assigning them a port for disembarkation. It is by international maritime law decidedly not the responsibility of the rescuer to find a willing port. There is also nothing that says it has to be the closest port. Only that it has to be a safe port. The Italian SAR never assigns Tunisian ports. I don't know whether it is because of the hassle involved or because they don't consider them safe.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5qvhx wrote

Tunisian ports are safe but it's harder to convince tunisian gouvernement to be a port of entry for rescued migrants stranded at sea unless it's from their own tunisian coast guards.


green_flash t1_jduo8uk wrote

Tunisia has been found to drive refugees into the Libyan desert and leave them to die there.

It's most certainly not a safe place for non-Tunisian refugees. Non-refoulement principle applies.


casus_bibi t1_jduwuh6 wrote

Irrelevant to rescues at sea laws, though, which are only to prevent people drowning.


green_flash t1_jdv1uvz wrote

Not irrelevant at all. As I said, the non-refoulement principle applies. Besides, it's the Italian SAR that is responsible for assigning them a port for disembarkation. It is by international maritime law decidedly not the responsibility of the rescuer to find a willing port.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5s2zr wrote

No, it's the up to rescuer to find a willing port.

There was an asian boat (I don't remember the name or date but they were likely a South East Asians boat that rescued lots of migrants, they docked all of them to Libya (the nearest port and available to dock).

Lots of tunisians fishermen that found migrants, bring them backt to Tunisia.

NGOs can (if they wanted) work with Tunisia, Algeria, Morrocco, Libya) to stop migrants from taking the sea TO SAVE MORE LIVES (since the goal is to save them from drawning NOT TRAFFIC THEM INTO EUROPE illegally).

Then if they aren't drawning in the sea. Finding another solution to transfer them into safer african countries or safe neighboring countries. NOT SENDING ALL REFUGEES THEY CAN SEND INTO EU SHORES.


wabblebee t1_jds5fg1 wrote

i wonder, if they sailed there with the intent to get people and then transported them to italy instead of the closest coast (Libya/Malta) they will probably try to spin it as human traficking.


green_flash t1_jds6b2j wrote

Nah, once they had picked up the additional migrants, the Italian SAR coordinator told them to disembark all passengers in Lampedusa. No one brings resuced migrants back to Libya, not even the Italian coastguard themselves.


Famous_Count_1623 t1_jdtb1ho wrote

Uh not according to Doctors Without Borders:

" In 2022, 253,205 people attempted to cross the Mediterranean; 42 per
cent of those were intercepted at sea and returned to Libya, despite
that Libya is not a place of safety. People continue to drown or go
missing during the attempt; 2,367 died or went missing in 2022"


Mastercat12 t1_jdtyh85 wrote

Yes Libya isn't a place of safety but the migrants came from Libya because thats where the traffickers are. They came from sub-sahara.


p251 t1_jdtxjjf wrote

The phrasing is confusing. They are processed in Italy then returned back to Libya. The alternative is entering other migrant networks in eu.


Arcadess t1_jduao5d wrote

The section you quoted doesn't mention who "rescued" them.
The Libyan "coast guard" is just a bunch of traffickers and militias with fancy boats, and their job is to catch migrants and bring them back to Libya.


Hapster23 t1_jduk8it wrote

Those are the ones intercepted by the libyan coast guard I imagine (I am by no means an expert on this topic, but I live in Malta and it's an issue I try to follow)


green_flash t1_jdudo95 wrote

That's solely due to the actions of the so-called "Libyan coastguard".


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je62htx wrote

If Doctor Without Borders care about migrants. They should act to evacuate migrants out of Libya once and for all to avoid people taking the sea and drawning.

There are lots of safe countries inside Africa. They can relocate as many migrants as they can from libya into safe africans countries and help them to start or rebuild their lives.

It's a more safer and long term success than fighting every years to find a port for all the migrants and EU ports seems to not want to take them.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je61u48 wrote

Only the libyans or non-EU rescuers can bring the rescued on Libyan they don't have any tie to the Italian SAR.

I remember a south east asian boat saved many migrants and brought them to Libyan ports (which was the closest port)


Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jds2wpn wrote

Hard to imagine that a self-styled fascist party would be so cynical about a populist issue! /s


[deleted] t1_jds6uhm wrote



xrcrguy t1_jdswzl9 wrote

TIL Banksy funded a migrant rescue vessel. Cool


green_flash t1_jdt2hkh wrote

The way he publicized it was quite awesome as well:

> “Like most people who have made it in the art world, I bought a yacht to sail around the Mediterranean,” Banksy wrote ironically in an Instagram video about it at the time.


[deleted] t1_jdtlpff wrote



just-cuz-i t1_jdtrm4x wrote

People have been crossing oceans in small and dangerous craft for literally tens of thousands of years and will continue to as their needs arise.


No-Reach-9173 t1_jdu38f5 wrote

I will always fail to see why people shouldn't be able to leave their shit home countries if they so choose.


Successful_Prior_267 t1_jdu6iv8 wrote

Countries have the right to decide who enters their borders. Just because your country sucks doesn’t mean that you can go wherever you want without regard for the law.


green_flash t1_jduer6v wrote

Countries that signed and ratified the UN refugee convention allow anyone to enter their country by any means whatsoever to claim political asylum. That's the whole point of the convention.


Successful_Prior_267 t1_jduf5hw wrote

The convention has no enforcement mechanism.


green_flash t1_jdufpvg wrote

Ratifying a convention means putting it into national law. The enforcement mechanism is Italy's legal system.


Nek0maniac t1_jdu48q9 wrote

They should be able to. But by legal means, not via illegal sea vessels that smuggle them into the country


No-Reach-9173 t1_jdu4uq7 wrote

They get smuggled into the country because there isn't legal means.


Nek0maniac t1_jdu57ld wrote

Dunno about that chief. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I got here through legal means. It certainly isn't easy, but it is possible.

Also, according to your logic it would be fine for me to steal a car, because I have no legal means to get it otherwise


No-Reach-9173 t1_jdubvqi wrote

A person would need approximately 9000+ euros to immigrate to Germany as I am sure you are aware. Roughly 6 billion people on earth will never have that much and many of the poorest would never earn that much in their lifetime. Thus they have no legal means to immigrate.


Falk_csgo t1_jdue3po wrote

Then those people have nothing to do in germany anyways other than enjoying taxpayer money. Its not like life here is free and if you cant get that money you probably wont sustain you own life there.

What do you think germany would look like with 6 billion people that never have 9000€ in their life and 80 million tax payers?


wangaroo123 t1_jduec4o wrote

Nope. A car is not necessary for your survival. Leaving their homes to cross a sea in a dingy is something people do as a last resort


Nek0maniac t1_jduf6fy wrote

The car was just an example. Stealing food because I can't afford it or breaking into someones house because I can't get my own place isn't okay either.


wangaroo123 t1_jdugc4y wrote

If you couldn’t get food by legal means you would rather starve to death than steal?


Nek0maniac t1_jdumxpz wrote

I probably would, it wouldn't make it okay though. We need laws in a society to keep it civilised and everyone has to follow them, regardless of circumstance.


green_flash t1_jduolt6 wrote

We have asylum laws that guarantee the right to apply for asylum as an inalienable human right to every person on German soil, regardless how they arrived in the country. Italy has such a law as well.


wangaroo123 t1_jdwex0a wrote

So you’re saying you would steal but you still think the highest moral ground in this situation is someone just accepting they can’t get food at the moment and starving?

IMO someone stealing isn’t great but it’s way better than someone dying, especially if it’s from starvation, a problem we could solve pretty easily if we wanted.

The bigger issue here is that someone needs to steal to not die. We should be condemning the cause of these issues much harsher than the symptoms.


KA-ME-HA-ME- t1_jdu8hhv wrote

By your logic slaves should never attempt to be free because it's theft. After all they legally belong to "Masa" don't they?

Oh I'm sorry I thought we were taking bad faith arguments to their illogical extreme


irk5nil t1_jdu78hp wrote

You have to ask those home countries to allow that, though.


[deleted] t1_jdtrpz2 wrote



Arcadess t1_jdub96t wrote

That's not being honest at all.
There is no link at all between NGOs' activity in the Mediterranean and migrant arrival, and not even a shred of proof about any kind of pact or money transfer between them and traffickers. >We find no relationship between the presence of NGOs at sea and the number of migrants leaving Libyan shores. Although more data and further research are needed, the results of our analysis call into question the claim that non-governmental SAR operations are a pull factor of irregular migration across the Mediterranean sea.

Feel free to share any kind of source about illegal activity between NGOs and traffickers, and share them with our courts too, since they didn't find any...


Heavyweighsthecrown t1_jdu8gqk wrote

> If their presence were not there, the migrants attempting to cross would, in most cases, not come

It's a good thing their presence is there then, to assure a safer (or 'less dangerous') crossing. Let's hope they keep it up for as long as they can.


yakovgolyadkin t1_jdu3gkm wrote

"We should make this very dangerous thing that incredibly desperate people do more dangerous, because that'll stop them from trying" is not a strategy that has ever worked.


zsaleeba t1_jdubql7 wrote

Leaning into the right wing narrative I see. There's little to no evidence that supports the assertion that rescuing people results in worse outcomes. To say otherwise is simply justifying callousness to the plight of these refugees.


green_flash t1_jduejvg wrote

Furthermore, something like 90% of sea rescues in the Mediterranean are done by the Italian and Maltese coastguards. The NGOs are not actually all that relevant. The reason Italy is making their job harder is domestic political posturing.


iamiamwhoami t1_jdty22z wrote

The problem is that migrants have to be on EU soil in order to claim asylum. The EU should create a program where refugees can apply for asylum remotely. The US did that recently and it saw a drastic decrease in illegal border crossings.

Edit: to the person who downvoted me, if you disagree with this then your problem isn’t with asylum seekers being put in danger. You just don’t want any asylum seekers whatsoever. You can be honest. You don’t have to pretend to care about asylum seekers. You can just say you don’t want the program to exist.


green_flash t1_jduf91g wrote

You misunderstood something there. There is no way to claim asylum from outside the US. For good reason: It would completely overwhelm the system and lead to a massive increase in successful applications for political asylum. You first have to cross the border. What the US wants to do is expedite the process of processing asylum claims:


oldar4 t1_jduegg4 wrote

How many people know who banksy is? He's been filmed. He owns this boat which means a paper trail. Its gotta be pretty easy to figure out eh


hymen_destroyer t1_jdug2p5 wrote

What reason does anyone have to expose him? He wishes to remain largely anonymous, so anyone obsessed with figuring out who he is would be, at best, a massive prick and at worst a psychopath.


oldar4 t1_jdugamd wrote

Just saying if anyone wanted to find out it seems like it'd be easy. Especislly since uk is covered in cc tv they definitely have to know. Which makes me suspicious of him


LooselyBasedOnGod t1_jduwql4 wrote

Suspicious why? I believe he has a large team supporting his efforts but his actual name has been out there for at least 10+ years.


hymen_destroyer t1_jduhwm3 wrote

OK well it seems like no one cares and so far have respected his anonymity. If he wants to reveal himself he might do that someday, he doesn't seem the least bit interested in celebrity though so probably not.


Pierma t1_jdur926 wrote

Italian here to give some background:

Everything regarding this nonsense is Piantedosi (our intern affairs minister) trying to pulling a dick size contest. He is the absolute worse and it's a disgrace that such a piece of garbage is in charge of such a delicate task, but bashing Italy for this is pretty easy when no further research is done on why the situation is like this:

- Right wing politicans heavily used the immigration problem in theyr campaign to criticize both the left wing and the European Union, contributing to the victory in the last elections

- Italy is currently having an immigration crysis with both the augmented flux of people due to the war coming both from the sea and the balkan route with little to no collaboration coming from both the EU and neighbour Nations

- The recent disaster from Cruto is being wheaponized with theese bullshit laws coming from Italy government, where a Turkey ship came to Italy instead of Greece due to the more aggressive coast guards (go check it out, it's onw of the worst recent events)

Even the recent bash with France where they accepted 240 of our immigrants, but sent back to theyr origin Nations a lot of them contributed in making the Italy situation even harsher

The whole EU is not giving the right justice to this problem. Remember to always check the whole situation before pointing your finger


PlateImpossible191 t1_jdusgng wrote

That would require way too much effort and admitting that the EU is refusing to face the problem as a community instead of leaving one or two countries neck deep in shit.

Everyone wants to save them but no one wants to take them in

It's a lot easier to just blame Italy and go "urr durr fascists urr durr".


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je672u4 wrote


>That would require way too much effort and admitting that the EU is refusing to face the problem as a community instead of leaving one or two countries neck deep in shit.

I agree. It's time for EU to work for a long term solution as this migrants-boat crisis seems to not have an no-ending cycle every year. And it's a matter of time before Italy, Greece explose. EU already pay hundred millions to billion € to Turkey, Morocco, Libya, .... it seems not enough to keep the migrants...hundred millions to protect its border, an increase in Frontex.... and still fail to find solution on the boat from mediteranean sea.

So the only solution is having better talk/negociation with safe africans countries to relocate africans refugees/migrants within africans continent. EU will have to take a thougher measures like Australia.

Makes laws that any migrants that come through the sea will be deported into a detention center in africa and they won't get any asylum in Europe. And then, support financially (with tech transfer or knowledge) the africans countries that are taking migrants/refugees to increase their growth and industrialization.


>Everyone wants to save them but no one wants to take them in

True, you basically point out the problem. And that's how I see it as well.

People want to rescue the migrants from drawning. It's a good thing. But no country want to take them in. Because it's a huge responsability and a burden to the tax payer....without forgetting the culture clash that can happen at any time.


Pierma t1_jdut63b wrote

To be fair not that the current italian government is doing a great job at not being called fascists


nicigar t1_jduldi1 wrote

Was Banksy on the ship? Is he out there risking his neck?


Then call it what it is: Banksy's cynical political stunt.


green_flash t1_jduooz0 wrote

What's cynical about rescuing people from drowning at sea?


casus_bibi t1_jduxtwu wrote

The human traffickers are. They just use worse boats and less diesel, load the boat up with hundreds of people who paid thousands per person to travel 20 miles off shore, barely out of Libya territorial waters, if that, to run out of diesel and be picked up by the 'rescuers' who take them the rest of the way, hundreds of miles, to Italy. The human traffickers do not give a fuck and see the rescuers as a system to use for their benefit.


nicigar t1_jdvwffn wrote

He's a masterclass in political signalling while doing fuck all.


laozi72 t1_jdvzkrz wrote

If I am Italy’s government, i will passed a law to make these people pay for all the expenses of those migrants while they are in Italy including the final cost of sending them elsewhere or till those migrants can pay for themselves.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je67qs7 wrote

True. It's so easy for NGOs to say all they do is rescuing people. They didn't do anything wrong. Which is a good thing to save people.

But they let Italy take ALL the responsability after that. If actually those NGOs pay for all accomodation, food, healthcare, welfare, ....for the migrants they bring, they won't get that much of a backlash. But they just drop them and BOOM they leave.

And Italy can't do anything just because they signed some paper decade years ago.

It's basically unfair. And EU think throwing money into Italy will solve or reduce the burden. No.


AutoModerator t1_jdrjyrx wrote

Hi Crimbobimbobippitybo. Your submission from is behind a registration wall. A registration wall limits the number of free articles users can access before they are required to register an account to log in to continue reading it. While your submission was not removed, users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


djq_ t1_jdth1at wrote

Article 98 of UNCLOS: Duty to render assistance, SOLAS article 4, EU OLAF report art

UNCLOS is ratified by all member states, including Italy. TFEU Art 83(2) can be applied as the legal basis for a Directive introducing criminal offenses and imposing criminal sanctions for failure to rescue at sea, as such criminalization. Italy already has the Sea Watch ruling against them (ECLI:EU:C:2022:604).

So yeah, Italy, good luck with that one in court!


Seversevens t1_jdspyo7 wrote

what a creepy and strange number of down votes on some of the comments


Podcaster t1_jdt33ap wrote

Lol, you’re right, even you seem to be getting downvoted. I need more info on this subject…


Famous_Count_1623 t1_jdtb5gs wrote


[deleted] t1_jdtbcbn wrote



[deleted] t1_jdtozhr wrote



[deleted] t1_jdtpc2b wrote



[deleted] t1_jdtt08f wrote



[deleted] t1_jdttop3 wrote



[deleted] t1_jdtvgbg wrote



[deleted] t1_jdtvkwl wrote



max300x t1_jdtvu4h wrote

That’s what happens when you apply anti-immigration politics.


Podcaster t1_jdtw9c0 wrote

So you admit I didn’t indicate any such idea and now you’re simply pivoting to a different question without addressing it? Are you trying to pin the deaths of people who step in to a sketchy boat on those who don’t want them in their nation? So by your logic, if I build a fence around my land and people die trying to climb it to invade my privacy and do who knows whatever other sketchy stuff on my land that’s on me?


max300x t1_je4igfg wrote

I never said you wanted to kill someone directly, just that actions have consequences. And your metaphor only works if there’s a f**king warzone next to your fence. In which case I would let anybody come in yes…


UpbeatAd1191 t1_jds0hur wrote

Per usual this gives me brain freeze when someone is trying to do right things. some one else interferes .


Skinny_on_the_Inside t1_jds5kkr wrote

You can donate to Banksy’s non profit that sponsors the ship. They are literally saving children from drowning in the sea.


Diabotek t1_jdsek57 wrote

I think the question of, who is putting these children in the sea to drown, should be answered before spending money on a company.


crambeaux t1_jdsim6m wrote

So you need to know who started the fire before you fund the fire department?


Diabotek t1_jdsplfg wrote

If a fire kept happening every month, I'd at least want to know why preventative measures haven't been put in place.


green_flash t1_jdskdhu wrote

I don't see how one prevents us from doing the other.

It's like arguing we can't help the homeless until we have found out what drives homelessness.


6bb26ec559294f7f t1_jdt9wci wrote

The problem is incentives. If you make a charity to buy child slaves and free them, you create an incentive to produce more child slaves. Even though you are directly helping children, literally saving child slaves, you create an economic incentive for more child slaves. This isn't purely hypothetical, anti-slavery charities don't spend money directly buying and freeing slaves for this very reason.

I'm not saying the same does apply here, only raising an example to show that it is possible that helping to solve a problem can instead make it worse.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je6ajc3 wrote

>I'm not saying the same does apply here, only raising an example to show that it is possible that helping to solve a problem can instead make it worse.

I agree. If we rescue the migrants who paid smugglers thousands € and bring them into EU, it will encourage smugglers to lure more and more migrants that they succeed. More migrants will pay smugglers to get trafficked...

If no migrants want to cross the sea, the smugglers won't get custumers and will stop it. I doubt they do it for free.

It's better for EU to take tougher measures. Save them from drawning but they won't be allowed to resettle within any EU countries but in safe africans country that have a booming economy, jobs, freedom, democracy, protect people's rights, .....with EU's funds through investment.

Once migrants know they won't be allowed into EU by crossing the sea. They won't pay smugllers to do that. And those human trafficking will stop.


green_flash t1_jdufhrg wrote

That's not quite the same. Buying child slaves gives money to the slaveholders. That's why charities don't do it. Freeing slaves without giving money to slaveholders is not an issue at all.


Kaltias t1_jduhpsw wrote

Making the trip through the Mediterranean easier saves money to the human traffickers because they can give the boat 20 km of fuel then call a ship to rescue them. This makes it cheaper for them but they charge the same money, so it's a profit for the traffickers.

I'm not trying to say the NGOs are willingly complicit in human trafficking, i think they just want to save people that risk their lives, but it doesn't mean the traffickers don't use them to their advantage regardless


green_flash t1_jdukk2n wrote

That way of thinking is extremely cynical. You could use it to argue against any charitable operation that helps victims of crime - and even against any safety mechanism. Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors. Leaving injured people to die is good because it prevents others from taking unnecessary risk.


Kaltias t1_jdul5ii wrote

I'm not arguing either way, i'm telling you what the human traffickers think about it. I don't have an acceptable solution to the problem. But if they weren't extremely cynical people they would do something else in their lives rather than sending people on a literal sinking boat after extorting them and robbing them, you're mistaken if you think they look at a rescue ship as anything else than a way to make their profit margin even bigger.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je6bsx4 wrote

I agree. If we rescue the migrants who paid smugglers thousands € and bring them into EU, it will encourage smugglers to lure more and more migrants that they succeed. More migrants will pay smugglers to get trafficked......a no-ending cycle that will go on for years.

If no migrants want to cross the sea, the smugglers won't get custumers and will stop it. Because I doubt they do it for free.

Implemanting laws that anybody who cross the sea won't be allowed into any EU countries (not even their asylum cases) and be relocated into safe africans countries (that have a booming economy) will discourage many migrants to try to do it. And the trafficking will stop instantly until EU have a better immigration system for migrants/refugees.

You have to be tough in some situation to get better result.


6bb26ec559294f7f t1_jdw8u1z wrote

> Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors.

I haven't seen any seriously make this argument for doctors because they are too far removed from decision making, but it is a discussion when adding new safety features to a dangerous activity. If the new safety feature encourages more dangerous behavior, then the safety needs to be worth the increase in dangerous behavior. Generally it is. Sometimes it isn't but it is added for legal/liability reasons; that's another case of perverse incentives.


GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je69icp wrote

>Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors.

Wrong take. Doctor exist to analyze patient and disease that are unintentional act.

And I don't think people take risk because there are doctors as the risks are on themselves and they have to pay from their they won't likely put themselves on danger because Doctor exist for that.

While those migrants take the route because they know they either make it or there would be rescuer that will save them.


Diabotek t1_jdsqay1 wrote

Except no solution has been offered at all.

Helping others while looking for a solution is fine. Refusing to look for a solution is unacceptable.


green_flash t1_jdssimo wrote

That's not the fault of the people helping the homeless.


Aratar2011 t1_jdsgzwa wrote

Are you accusing Banksy of paying to put migrants on shoddy boats just to rescue them later? I'm going to need a WHOLE lot of proof to believe that bullshit.


mixedcurve t1_jdugg9v wrote

Weird number of downvotes here. Imma guess the bots or something are out. I highly doubt Banksy has some secret migrant dump and rescue operation. The makes zero logical sense