Why everywhere J'cans guh dem affi

[Bricktop]

Yuh listening to yourself?

[Bricktop]

Back to topic. Uptown brown went to NZ to start a jerk chicken stall wid one of his NZ bredrins. Him was a date a NZ girl den di Jerkers bizness fold up in 6 mon ths and di girl lef him. Him head tek him & he went to the bank where the chick worked and got smaddy to hand her the note. In this case is just a head tekking ting cause uptown brown fadda have money

[Assasin]

and nuh matter how them try, him woulda still have his passport.

[ReggaeMike]

Yuh listening to yourself?

What? Is there anything untrue in what I wrote? Did countries not agree back in the 1940s and 50s when the UN was being set up to freedom of movement within countries? Did they also not agree on retaining the right to control movement between countries? Why is it absurd for countries to retain control over who they let into their countries? I suppose you wouldn't mind if Afghan opium dealers were able to freely move into Jamaica to set up business? Or maybe Eastern European child prostitution rings?

If you are talking about the water example, then please tell me how it is that people could have a "right" to have water when for the most part humans have no control over the weather (the ultimate source of all fresh water)? Look on the drought we having now. With human rights, when it is violated there is a method of redress, usually in the courts. Who is going to be sued or imprisoned in the courts over a drought? God? Maybe the government? Or Catherine's Peak?

I think people are forgetting what a "right" is. A right, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". Now since no state in the world has control over the complete water cycle, how is it that any state can provide its citizens with a legal entitlement to water? It would be like all people having the right to visit the centre of the sun. All states do have control over whether or not their citizens can speak freely or can walk about without fear of being harassed or killed by other people, etc which is why we have those rights. Note that the "right to life" is interpreted in the sense of "right not to be murdered" as opposed to the right not die before you are very, very old. If you contract AIDS and die, your family cannot sue the state or imprison the doctor for violating your right to life, because your life was not taken from you under circumstances which are under human control.

So the real question is "are you really reading what was written"?

[Bricktop]

So you shouldn't be allowed to travel from the country you were born in? You don;t think that should be a human right?

[ReggaeMike]

So you shouldn't be allowed to travel from the country you were born in? You don;t think that should be a human right?

Well answer the questions I posed first nuh?

You think any and everybody should be able to travel from the country they were born in? Such as Afghan opium dealers (those who haven't been convicted and in prison anyway)?

Why do you think it should be a right?

In answer to your question (despite your not having answered any of mine), I'll say this: you cannot have a universal right to travel around the world and at the same time still have independent states. It's either - or. If states can't have immigration controls then they lose one of the most important facets of being a independent state and become little different than the provincial governments of Canada or state governments in the US. If you have a universal right to leave the country you were born in then you MUST also have the right to go to another country since the only place left on earth which isn't controlled by any states is Antarctica (not exactly place most people want to live or travel to). So if everyone has the right to go to another country then there is no way they can be sent back at any time since that would violate their right to leave their country of origin. So you or I could say that we are simply "visiting" Japan for the rest of our lives and there is nothing Japan's authorities could do about it even if it reached the extent where there was no free land left to build on and the place started to stink to high heaven due to all the sewage backing up.

[Rockman]

I do not like changing the theme of the thread but clearly our views differ regarding water.There is a pool of global investors that are already purchasing the rights to water, and with serious consequences.As water rights are sold, less people have access to clean water;some regions meters were introduced eventually ending access.., and as big companies(Nestle,Pepsi,Coca Cola) purchase water rights people assume that their water is cleaner, hence we accept that tap water isn't, at the expense of demanding its infrastructure(old caustic pipes being replaced)Even recently Pepsi was forced to admit its brand aquafani(sp)is tap water, yet the bottle cost some 7000 times more.China(Govt) has depleted its people water for the use of production, it will now have to tap into some lake which supplies other nations(water wars to be expected). There is clear evidence our water supply is dwindling.
If deprive of both food and water you will die of lack of water first.
It starts at the question who owns the rights to water?It is an essential service.

Blessed

[ReggaeMike]

I do not like changing the theme of the thread but clearly our views differ regarding water.There is a pool of global investors that are already purchasing the rights to water, and with serious consequences.As water rights are sold, less people have access to clean water;some regions meters were introduced eventually ending access.., and as big companies(Nestle,Pepsi,Coca Cola) purchase water rights people assume that their water is cleaner, hence we accept that tap water isn't, at the expense of demanding its infrastructure(old caustic pipes being replaced)Even recently Pepsi was forced to admit its brand aquafani(sp)is tap water, yet the bottle cost some 7000 times more.China(Govt) has depleted its people water for the use of production, it will now have to tap into some lake which supplies other nations(water wars to be expected). There is clear evidence our water supply is dwindling.
If deprive of both food and water you will die of lack of water first.
It starts at the question who owns the rights to water?It is an essential service.

Blessed

Well there probably should be a "right to access water when it is naturally available", but a "right to water" is far too broad and would be abused to point of becoming a farce in court.

[Assasin]

Travelling is a right. you notice only very bad criminals are denied that right in a "free country"?

Human rights would be all over that just in case it is tried.

[ReggaeMike]

Travelling is a right. you notice only very bad criminals are denied that right in a "free country"?

Human rights would be all over that just in case it is tried.

Travelling within a country is a universal right (even then the USSR and the countries of the former USSR basically denied this right as does China today). Between countries, not so.

Human rights can be all over the denial of the "right" to travel between countries but they would get a royal face-palm in court when their case gets thrown out. I wouldn't be a surprised if a judge showed them this attitude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0&NR=1

The plain fact is that every day people are denied the ability to travel between countries and there isn't a court in the world that would uphold it as a right.

[Assasin]

they will lose when the rights is denied by the country you want to enter. If your goverment cherry pick who to give passport that is a totally different issue.


http://www.gcim.org/attachements/TP8.pdf

[ReggaeMike]

they will lose when the rights is denied by the country you want to enter. If your goverment cherry pick who to give passport that is a totally different issue.


http://www.gcim.org/attachements/TP8.pdf

Exactly. As the paper said on page 1 (well page 2 of the PDF) the right to leave does not constitute a right to enter other states. However there cannot be a right to travel if one doesn't have both the right to leave a country and the right to enter any other country. Travel (as we have been discussing it anyway) involves moving from point A to point B. Attempting to go from point A to point B and then being turned back to point A is also travelling but there wouldn't be much point to it and it would an odd right to have. You only have the right to leave a country if it is that you are able to gain access to another country. That's different.

Cherry picking who gets a passport is only wrong if it there isn't reasonable justification for it. I've been arguing that people who have been proven to and knowingly go abroad and do things like carry drugs, break other laws or commit fraud should have their passports seized (and not necessarily permanently). Committing crimes is reasonable justification for the denial of rights (after all convicted criminals in prison do not have the right to vote, the right to move freely about the country and obviously the right to leave the country if they can find another country which will allow them entry). If you are arbitrarily deported from the Cayman Islands with no reason given or have been falsely accused of having fraudulent documents then that wouldn't constitute "reasonable justification" for punishment. Such justifications should probably also be felonies and misdemeanours which are criminal in both countries. So I wouldn't expect the Dutch to seize someone's passport for a few months if they were convicted of using marijuana in say the US when he could freely do so in Amsterdam. Nor would I expect that Jamaica would seize someone's passport if they were deported for speaking freely in North Korea. Carry drugs though (knowingly) or attempt a robbery and the passport should be taken away for a given period of time.

[Assasin]

"What should ideally be done is to get tough with the passports. Last time I checked, having a passport is still a privilege, not a right. Anybody caught doing any offence and/or deported should have their passport revoked for a given period of time. That way other countries won't have to do the work for us by, you know, imposing visas."

This was your intial comment on the topic, wasn't it?

[ReggaeMike]

"What should ideally be done is to get tough with the passports. Last time I checked, having a passport is still a privilege, not a right. Anybody caught doing any offence and/or deported should have their passport revoked for a given period of time. That way other countries won't have to do the work for us by, you know, imposing visas."

This was your intial comment on the topic, wasn't it?

Yes and it was based entirely off what you can see at the back of your passport.

I'll quote the last section of the information found on the back cover of my passport (obtained in 2009):

CAUTION
1. This passport remains the property of the Government of Jamaica and may be withheld or withdrawn at any time. It should not be altered in any way by the holder and should not be allowed to pass into the possession of any unauthorized person.
2.......

To me that doesn't sound like an unlimited right to use (or abuse) your passport. Sure they are required to facilitate your right to leave, but even the Human Rights Council qualifies it by noting that governments can seemingly have justifiable reasons for denying the right to leave.

So unless they are printing foolishness (always a possibility... ) then this means governments don't have to put up with people abusing the reputation of their country abroad by doing illegal things.

[Assasin]

oh by the way, on my census envelope it say it is against the law not to send the info, so hurry up and send yours back or the government might come after you.