This is a case of potential asylum seekers being forced back to their point of departure. As I said, the only test of their case is a legal process which is not possible in Libya.

If you don’t deny that some are genuine refugees, then you have no argument in facour of returning the ship to Libya.

L-Amerikani fil-fatt lanqas johorgu mid-dar. Daqstant misthija bil-barbarizmu tal-gvern taghhom u l-vjolenza li jwettaq taht il-velu tal-paci.

“”The Maltese authorities have a humanitarian duty to ensure the safety and well-being of those rescued. They must allow the boat to disembark in Malta and its passengers to be given any necessary medical treatment, as well as a chance to apply for asylum,” said Jezerca Tigani, deputy director for Europe and Central Asia at Amnesty International. ”

““The Maltese government is wasting precious time in refusing to disembark people in immediate need,” said Jezerca Tigani.”

“Amnesty International considers that no passenger onboard MV Salamis should be removed to Libya. This would violate the international prohibition against removing anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of ill-treatment or other serious human rights abuses.”

All I can say in reply is wise man did once say never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Daphne – Well, that was probably the man in charge of the country right now, which is exactly how he got there and you’re still swallowing the bait.]

I did not deny that some could have been genuine refugees. That is immaterial from the “safe port” aspect unless they were Libyans who were fleeing from conditions in Libya and for whom no port in Libya would be safe.

As far as I know, no one is pretending that they were. This is NOT a case of lodging rescued asylum seekers until their real status is determined. It is a case of of persons, not necessarily asylum seekers, in imminent danger of drowning and landing them at the nearest safe port.

I repeat, the nearest safe port was Tripoli in the context of this SAR and not Malta even though you seem to wish it was. The Italian (not Maltese) authorities determined this as they were co-ordinating the rescue and would have, presumably, done it with the co-operation of the Libyan authorities.

[Daphne – This is unbelievable. You are quite deliberately using half-facts and partial information to back your unsound argument. ‘Safe port’ in search-and-rescue terms is not the same as ‘safe port’ in asylum-seeking terms. The European Commission decided on the latter basis. What Italy and Malta think is irrelevant. We all know what Muscat thinks about the safety of Libya for asylum-seekers: he doesn’t give a damn about how they are treated there. And Italy, you conveniently omit to mention, eventually allowed the tanker in BECAUSE MALTA REFUSED AND BECAUSE RETURNING THEM TO LIBYA WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION.]

When I worked in Libya in 2009, it was quite common for the local coastguard to intercept and offload migrant boats in Tripoli in conjunction with EU authorities. This is how I got to know several asylum seekers during my time there. So there is liaison.

[Daphne – ‘In conjunction with EU authorities’. No, in liaison with Berlusconi’s Italy, which is different.]

Read the SOLA and SAR conventions on the IMO website.
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Facilitation/IllegalMigrants/Pages/Default.aspx

Also, the context would be leaving Libya as they are people in transit through the country. They are not Libyans but fleeing places like Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and Niger. Most Libyans come here legally on the daily Tripoli flight and not in a dinghy.

Yes. Muscat’s tweets were stupid as he’s a dumbass, but I think a degree of calm is needed as it seems to me that people are just trying to make political capital out of this on both sides of the spectrum just to prove how bad the other lot are.

[Daphne – You have got it the wrong way round. This situation is bad because the Labour government is unfit for purpose. It is not the situation which makes the government look bad, but a bad situation which has been created because the government is unfit. ‘Portrayal’ has nothing to do with it. There are facts. One of those facts is that recreational yachtsmen on a sinking Beneteau are not in the same ‘SAR’ category as asylum seekers on a sinking fishing-boat.]

It does not necessarily follow that they are NOT genuine refugees. The case for asylum can be tested through due legal process in a country which can offer asylum. It can’t and shouldn’t be tested by returning asylum seekers to their point of departure.

Define ‘nearest safe port’. The law doesn’t spell it out literally. Safety is relative and derived from context. Libyan asylum seekers could not have been returned to Libya safely. It’s no different for asylum seekers of other nationality.

http://news.feed-reader.net/6260-malta.html