Quote:
Originally Posted by oleg
Strange to see as you or some other forum members use the Wikipedia as absolute infallible source to cite, setting all dots over "i". The concentration camps were invented long before Nazis, namely by Brits in their war with Boers in South Africa, these camps existed in the WWI either. The goal of any concentration camp is forcible isolation of great amounts of people in emergency situations when the law or even martial courts simply are not able to carry on the hearings of every single case for the time reason. The concentration camps are direct consequences of wars unseen in history of old, comprehanding millions or even tens of millions people. The termination of prisoners is not necessary feature of the concentration camp. For instance Guantanamo seems to offer enough bearable conditions, but comply to the subject of CC cause all prisoners are isolated without concrete charge or defined term. Whatever be it, the main human right - for freedom if not charged in crime - is violated, as well as in case of European camps for Africans. The reason for existence of those camps is quite understandable - as answer to the threat to Natonal Security of EU or the USA. The human rights of prisoners are being neglected, cause the prisoners have obvious and doubtless potential to hurt the National Security and society, their human rights (to move in direction of European shores) contradict to the interests of the European community, though don't undergo the definition of direct breaking the criminal law.
This is the thing that you in the West can not confess - the however long and detailed list of laws never can describe, prevent, regulate or punish all the possible dangers or the real world as well as the human rights of one person finish there where they hurt or threaten the human rights of the other.
|
You know that reminds me somehow to the right extreme FPÖ members wearing just recently blue cornflowers in the Parliament. Probably you know not its meaning, but they argumented exactly along your line, just with cornflowers.
You did not with a single word talked about the fact that if there are human rights violations you can go to court, and our NGO's are a pain in the ass when they see a chance to get something to court, even the more if one could use the word concentration camp.
You ignore btw also the fact that those camps you are refering to have a very high turnover on refugees, people are not there to stay for a long time. They are there because if you dont have an eye on them, they are gone, and the asylum cases take a few months and then flight back also has to be organized. I agree with you btw that the circumstances there have an urgent need to be improved. Countries have to invest more that medical support in the camps gets better and the overall level too. But wouldnt a concentration camp need to deserve this name inmates are expecting to be there for a real long time?
Quote:
The foreign financed NGOs are always loud if there are some little chances to perform the case of Khodorkovsky or of any representative of foreign interests as the violation of human rights in barbarical Russia, but not a single bastard in these NGOs have ever moved his ass in real cases of injustice. All the Russia went into the streets as the obviously unguilty car-driver, who's car was hit by the car of the Governor of one Russian province (and Governor has died in the accident), was sentenced to a few years term. The government of Russia was forced to intrude and abolish the desicion of local court. All the country spoke about the issue and appealed for justice, and everybody celebrated when the man was freed. And only western NGOs in Russia were silent and ignorant - he was an ordinary Russian, not vivid pro-western democrat, Jew or owner of oil-company.
All western-funded NGOs are fully discredited in Russia and some are simply hated, therefore all the financial grants still being pumped in them is only waste of money. Sad, that small quantity of really useful NGOs which were not concerned with political attack against our State are weakened together.
|
Thats hillarious. I ask you what can a NGO do apart from being loud? If people oppose it then it can do nothing also no harm. The capital of NGO's is information and support by people. If they dont have any support the last they can do is spread information. Are you afraid of wrong information?
The other point is, that those "western funded" NGO's you are talking about are not a bit less louder in the west. And we by far do not agree with all of them. If they brake the law by some sort of actionism they will be punished according to law (some fee for example) if they obey law completely there is no reason why to care about them at all.
So why banning NGO's? They can't harm you or your state, if they have no case. Or are trying to tell me Russians are too stupid that they are unable to resist the spreaded lies? Or if there is another reason please tell me. In which way are NGO's dangerous?