ForumGarden

https://www.msf.org/aquarius-forced-end ... ople-drown

I'm not sure this is a bad thing at all, because I don't think the directors of the Aquarius have been entirely honest when describing how they operated. Far from rescuing would-be migrants they've been operating a water-taxi service from close to the Libyan coastline to Europe.

The intention, they claimed, was to prevent drownings.

Had this been the intention I can't see any reason for them to bring the would-be migrants north instead of returning them to Libyan soil. Bringing them north must surely have increased the traffic. Consistently returning them to Libya would surely have reduced the number setting out. I can't see any way in which consistently returning them to Libya would have increased the risk of drowning though I'm open to suggestions on that point.

I suggest the Italians should have impounded the rescue ship years ago.

spot;1521498 wrote: https://www.msf.org/aquarius-forced-end ... ople-drown

I'm not sure this is a bad thing at all, because I don't think the directors of the Aquarius have been entirely honest when describing how they operated. Far from rescuing would-be migrants they've been operating a water-taxi service from close to the Libyan coastline to Europe.

The intention, they claimed, was to prevent drownings.

Had this been the intention I can't see any reason for them to bring the would-be migrants north instead of returning them to Libyan soil. Bringing them north must surely have increased the traffic. Consistently returning them to Libya would surely have reduced the number setting out. I can't see any way in which consistently returning them to Libya would have increased the risk of drowning though I'm open to suggestions on that point.

I suggest the Italians should have impounded the rescue ship years ago.


It's a very fine line to be drawn and I think that the only questions you haven't touched on are firstly whether it would have put the MSF personnel in danger trying to land the migrants back on Libyan soil and secondly whether they would have been able to impound the people traffickers vessels once they'd done so. Given favourable answers to both questions I'd say you're right, it's the only tactic that would work in the long term.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... s-on-nauru https://www.msf.org.au/our-work Seems MSF are on the warpath (so to speak) And good on them too .

magentaflame;1521525 wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... s-on-nauru https://www.msf.org.au/our-work Seems MSF are on the warpath (so to speak) And good on them too .


I'm all in favour of that at Nauru, locking away refugees where they can't be seen is an outrage wherever it happens.

Totally agree.Our government is clammering at the moment to get out of it. When the policy first came in it was a federal election issue. It's now a federal election issue again (April next year) but has swung the other way. It was a policy to "stop the boats" . Basically punishing people to deter others. But over time our doctors, nurses, health professionals were threatened terms of imprisonment if they spoke about the appalling conditions. Now MSF is involved, people are going berzerk. Basically, if MSF says things are bad then it must be really really bad. But..... everyone knew it was bad years ago. There's no getting around that. Government has blood on it's hands. Essentially we don't have detention centres. Our government created it's own concentration camps. I always knew it would come back and bite us on the bum. Put simply, you can't say that you're detaining people to return them to their home countries when they are clearly refugees, then the next minute tell everyone that you are holding them as a deterrent to others .