Jump to content
Complete France Forum

The world and the EU in particular have gone mad!


Recommended Posts

"Former Danish Migration Minister Inger Støjberg has been sentenced to 60 days in prison after being convicted of illegally separating child brides from migrant men in 2016.

The former Minister for Immigration and Integration, who served in the role from 2015 to 2019, was found guilty of violating the Ministerial Responsibility Act on Monday over her brief policy of separating couples — predominantly migrant men with underage wives — during the height of the European migrant crisis.

Støjberg had separated 18 couples in 2016 after deciding migrant girls aged between 14 and 17 would not be accommodated in the same asylum reception facilities as their husbands, most of whom were adults.

According to a report from the Danish broadcaster TV2, the separation of the couples was found to be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and several points of Danish administrative law."

Thus, those who seek to prevent paedophiles, must be banged up in gaol?

Pardon me?

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gluestick said:

"Former Danish Migration Minister Inger Støjberg has been sentenced to 60 days in prison after being convicted of illegally separating child brides from migrant men in 2016.

The former Minister for Immigration and Integration, who served in the role from 2015 to 2019, was found guilty of violating the Ministerial Responsibility Act on Monday over her brief policy of separating couples — predominantly migrant men with underage wives — during the height of the European migrant crisis.

Støjberg had separated 18 couples in 2016 after deciding migrant girls aged between 14 and 17 would not be accommodated in the same asylum reception facilities as their husbands, most of whom were adults.

According to a report from the Danish broadcaster TV2, the separation of the couples was found to be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and several points of Danish administrative law."

Thus, those who seek to prevent paedophiles, must be banged up in gaol?

Pardon me?

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”


 Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gluestick said:

"Former Danish Migration Minister Inger Støjberg has been sentenced to 60 days in prison after being convicted of illegally separating child brides from migrant men in 2016.

The former Minister for Immigration and Integration, who served in the role from 2015 to 2019, was found guilty of violating the Ministerial Responsibility Act on Monday over her brief policy of separating couples — predominantly migrant men with underage wives — during the height of the European migrant crisis.

Støjberg had separated 18 couples in 2016 after deciding migrant girls aged between 14 and 17 would not be accommodated in the same asylum reception facilities as their husbands, most of whom were adults.

According to a report from the Danish broadcaster TV2, the separation of the couples was found to be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and several points of Danish administrative law."

Thus, those who seek to prevent paedophiles, must be banged up in gaol?

Pardon me?

 

 

3 hours ago, Gluestick said:

"Former Danish Migration Minister Inger Støjberg has been sentenced to 60 days in prison after being convicted of illegally separating child brides from migrant men in 2016.

The former Minister for Immigration and Integration, who served in the role from 2015 to 2019, was found guilty of violating the Ministerial Responsibility Act on Monday over her brief policy of separating couples — predominantly migrant men with underage wives — during the height of the European migrant crisis.

Støjberg had separated 18 couples in 2016 after deciding migrant girls aged between 14 and 17 would not be accommodated in the same asylum reception facilities as their husbands, most of whom were adults.

According to a report from the Danish broadcaster TV2, the separation of the couples was found to be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and several points of Danish administrative law."

Thus, those who seek to prevent paedophiles, must be banged up in gaol?

Pardon me?

 

The problem here is is East meets West! Here child brides are forbidden, in fact a criminal offence., in the East normal. I have always thought that Middle eastern countries in particular, have customs and behaviour that we, in the west , take as barbaric and cruel. Child brides are just one example. In the East they think our customs and behaviour to be wrong. So, who is right? Depends where you were raised and live I suppose! As for the Danish Immigration Officer: She should have been aware of the law in her country, or someone informed her of the law. She was guilty of an offence under her own (and  E.U. regulations) and has paid the price.  The conundrum of course is that as Child marriages are not allowed in the west just how do governments deal with it? I suspect they just turn a blind eye in so far as not recognising them!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ken said:

As for the Danish Immigration Officer: She should have been aware of the law in her country, or someone informed her of the law. She was guilty of an offence under her own (and  E.U. regulations) and has paid the price.

"Denmark

The age of consent in the Kingdom of Denmark is 15 as specified by Section 222:[20]

§ 222. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 8 years, unless the situation is covered by § 216 paragraph 2. In determining the penalty, it shall be an aggravating circumstance if the perpetrator has gained intercourse by exploiting his physical or mental superiority.

Section 223, part 1, reads: "Any person who has sexual intercourse with any child under 18, who is said person's adopted child, stepchild or foster child, or who is entrusted to said person for education or upbringing, will be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four years", this includes teachers. Further, part 2 of § 223 establishes that the same punishment is applicable to any person found to have grossly exploited their age and experience based superiority over a person under the age of 18 to seduce said minor into intercourse."

Q.V. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EUR1824302020ENGLISH.pdf

Surely, Ken East and West have absolutely nothing to do with law? The next problem, to me, is that the ECHR have, once more, reached a decision which conflicts with the apparent body of law?

What's next? "Oh, Female Genital Mutilation is the normal thing in our country." Or,

"No it is normal in our country to smother malformed babies at birth, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, cannot tolerate imperfection."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gluestick said:

"Denmark

The age of consent in the Kingdom of Denmark is 15 as specified by Section 222:[20]

§ 222. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 8 years, unless the situation is covered by § 216 paragraph 2. In determining the penalty, it shall be an aggravating circumstance if the perpetrator has gained intercourse by exploiting his physical or mental superiority.

Section 223, part 1, reads: "Any person who has sexual intercourse with any child under 18, who is said person's adopted child, stepchild or foster child, or who is entrusted to said person for education or upbringing, will be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four years", this includes teachers. Further, part 2 of § 223 establishes that the same punishment is applicable to any person found to have grossly exploited their age and experience based superiority over a person under the age of 18 to seduce said minor into intercourse."

Q.V. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EUR1824302020ENGLISH.pdf

Surely, Ken East and West have absolutely nothing to do with law? The next problem, to me, is that the ECHR have, once more, reached a decision which conflicts with the apparent body of law?

What's next? "Oh, Female Genital Mutilation is the normal thing in our country." Or,

"No it is normal in our country to smother malformed babies at birth, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, cannot tolerate imperfection."

 

 

 

I would agree that East and West have nothing to do with the law.That is, eastern law in the west and vice versa. The law in a sovereign country is what should count. (Don't mention the E.U.!!!) Denmark has enforced the law regarding the Minister but does it enforce the law regarding marriages to children, can it? Just how do you prove an adult has had sex with a child without imposing on their human rights!! I don't know of any prosecutions in Denmark, or anywhere else for that matter regarding illegal sex between a couple who are married but the bride is a child!!! I think the west has a very big table to sweep lots of things under!!! Immigration and the control of it is, in part, the answer. Men who are married to children can then be vetted and refused entry but immigration control is a very touchy subject isn't it? Europe is slowly awakening to the problems but it's probably too late without radical reform, step in the human rights mob!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what you define as "the West" when it comes to marriage ages.

Most states (in the USA)  have a minimum marriage age for minors with parental consent, ranging from 12-17 years old. However, California and Mississippi do not have minimum ages for minors to be allowed to marry with parental consent. Massachusetts has the lowest minimum marriage age with parental consent of 14 years old for boys and 12 years old for girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Lehaut.

However when I use the term generically, I do tend to leave out the USA! Mad, mad place. California in particular.

That said, I worked on a project in Silicon Valley Calif. back in the early 1980s, based in San Jose and enjoyed some splendid experiences and made some good friends.

Your comment reminded me of the first UK tour of one Jerry Lee Lewis back in the mists of time; when he brought along his new bride of circa 14 years old!

Big stink and furore!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Teapot1 said:

Ken, when you say the east and west are you leaving out the Vatican city where the age is 13! I leave others to debate the pedophile church of Catholicism.

East and West, a generality. There are countries in the West that allow under age (according to Europe)  marriages and therefor sex. As I said earlier, what is considered normal in one country is considered abnormal in anther. The great danger is that we become sanctimonious and consider our laws and customs to be the only correct ones. The big problem comes when immigrants bring their customs to Europe, or indeed, when europeans go to other countries and lecture them on their customs!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gluestick said:

About the only politician to have the guts and brains to speak out is Viktor Orban, the PM of Hungary.

 

 

How about Zemmour? Indeed most of the front runners are now talking about curbing immigration; including Macron. Germany, on the other hand; so I read this morning; is again encouraging immigration!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems pretty obvious, Ken, that all leading contenders set out to eat Le Pen's lunch, on immigration!

Politicians know full well, that flooding a nation state with incomers who refuse to integrate and demand the constant accommodation for their own cultural mores (Let alone their religious demands), has created/will create huge societal friction.

However, spouting on about it is easy in a political manifesto: actually doing something about it if and when elected are two hugely disparate matters!

At least Orban has actually taken positive steps; despite constant and increasing threats from Brussels.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gluestick said:

It seems pretty obvious, Ken, that all leading contenders set out to eat Le Pen's lunch, on immigration!

Politicians know full well, that flooding a nation state with incomers who refuse to integrate and demand the constant accommodation for their own cultural mores (Let alone their religious demands), has created/will create huge societal friction.

However, spouting on about it is easy in a political manifesto: actually doing something about it if and when elected are two hugely disparate matters!

At least Orban has actually taken positive steps; despite constant and increasing threats from Brussels.

 

Dare I say that we all want to end the illegal and mass immigration into Europe. I certainly do. Even those that aid the immigrants must surely want it to end. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that politicians say they will do something and never do! Just what is the answer, Another war because the situation becomes so chronic step forward a dictator who appeals  the masses? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what I find so risible, Ken, is the whole concept behind the formation of the EEC - which was naturally ignored by fools such as Heath, of course! - was to end wars and problems between member states.

Of course, no politician actually bothered to read or task a highly paid civil servant with apposite skills to read and report on the Treaty of Rome, which was the founding document.

Now, if they had have actually taken the time and trouble, they would have recoiled in horror; as the Treaty laid out forward plans for EMU (Economic and Monetary Union: i.e. the Euro and one system of taxation common to all); plus the concept of a federal state, one system of law, and so on.

Heath, of course, lied and represented the EEC as a sort of trading agreement; neatly ignoring the singular fact that we already had one! It was called EFTA (The European Free Trade Agreement). So why did we need another?

In order to now limit legal immigration (essential to achieve) and Illegal Immigration, needs absolute agreement by both Brussels and member state politicians: as well as ensuring that there would be no breaches of the European Human Rights Laws. Plus, of course, shutting up the fools in the blighted UN! Oh, and the silly old duffer who presently serves as the Pope!

Expecting all such boxes to be ticked with the current gang of useless self-serving politicians who would be hard put to run a bath is impossible.

Which is why they waffle, pontificate and rabbit on about "Social Enrichment", the wonders of a multi-cultural society and etc. in the attempt of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gluestick said:

Now what I find so risible, Ken, is the whole concept behind the formation of the EEC - which was naturally ignored by fools such as Heath, of course! - was to end wars and problems between member states.

Of course, no politician actually bothered to read or task a highly paid civil servant with apposite skills to read and report on the Treaty of Rome, which was the founding document.

Now, if they had have actually taken the time and trouble, they would have recoiled in horror; as the Treaty laid out forward plans for EMU (Economic and Monetary Union: i.e. the Euro and one system of taxation common to all); plus the concept of a federal state, one system of law, and so on.

Heath, of course, lied and represented the EEC as a sort of trading agreement; neatly ignoring the singular fact that we already had one! It was called EFTA (The European Free Trade Agreement). So why did we need another?

In order to now limit legal immigration (essential to achieve) and Illegal Immigration, needs absolute agreement by both Brussels and member state politicians: as well as ensuring that there would be no breaches of the European Human Rights Laws. Plus, of course, shutting up the fools in the blighted UN! Oh, and the silly old duffer who presently serves as the Pope!

Expecting all such boxes to be ticked with the current gang of useless self-serving politicians who would be hard put to run a bath is impossible.

Which is why they waffle, pontificate and rabbit on about "Social Enrichment", the wonders of a multi-cultural society and etc. in the attempt of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

 

 

I 'm not sure that the EEC was formed to stop wars! Certainly for more integration which I suppose would help in that direction but specifically to stop war. I don't agree. Commercialism was the main thrust of the Treaty of Rome and somehow this has morphed, over the years, as to become a treaty to stop war! That aside I agree with all your points about politicians and their 'waffle'.  Perhaps we do need a Le Pen or Zemmour that have stated categorically that they would do something about it, but will they get their chance? I doubt it. Your points are valid but the electorate put the same old 'Wafflers' back in power so who really is at fault; them or us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The original idea was conceived by Jean Monnet, a senior French civil servant and it was announced by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, in a declaration on 9 May 1950. The aim was to pool Franco-West German coal and steel production, because the two raw materials were the basis of the industry (including war industry) and power of the two countries. The proposed plan was that Franco-West German coal and steel production would be placed under a common High Authority within the framework of an organisation that would be open for participation to other European countries. The underlying political objective of the European Coal and Steel Community was to strengthen Franco-German cooperation and banish the possibility of war. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gluestick said:

"The original idea was conceived by Jean Monnet, a senior French civil servant and it was announced by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, in a declaration on 9 May 1950. The aim was to pool Franco-West German coal and steel production, because the two raw materials were the basis of the industry (including war industry) and power of the two countries. The proposed plan was that Franco-West German coal and steel production would be placed under a common High Authority within the framework of an organisation that would be open for participation to other European countries. The underlying political objective of the European Coal and Steel Community was to strengthen Franco-German cooperation and banish the possibility of war. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome

 

I'm sure you feel that your highlighted sentence qualifies as the objective of the EEC but I respectfully differ. 'An underlying political objective' isn't mentioned or anything like it in the Treaty of Rome. Neither was it mentioned in your post that Monnet and Schuman declared 'it was to banish war'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...