Liberal Road Blog Individual Freedom and Equality

Earlier this week the Immigration court in Sweden decided that some Iraqi refugees can be deported to some parts (mainly north) of Iraq. According to the court there isn’t a military conflict in Iraq as defined juridically. That’s why some deportations are possible. This decision has been criticized and even the minister of foreign affairs has expressed some concerns over the issue (source: Svenska Dagbladet, in Swedish).

I’d like to point attention here to one thing that hasn’t been debated that much. The critics have been about whether or not Iraq is safe enough, but not about why in the first place we are deporting people.

I believe that deporting people is very discriminating: if you are a citizen you can stay, but if you are not you don’t have this right. This puts people in different situations based on where they were born or who their parents are.

Moreover when the deportation is due to crimes committed in the country, it is actually a second punishment you get because you are a foreigner. First you are punished for the crime and if you are a foreigner you get this second punishment: deportation.

Some people argue that the deportation of criminals are right because it protects the country from further crimes. But this is only a way to move the problem to foreign countries, not to solve it. And if we are deporting non-citizen criminals, shouldn’t we actually deport ALL criminals, even citizens, to be consequent? I believe that no: we shouldn’t deport anyone at all.

Basically everyone should be free to go to whatever country they want to and even settle there. Country borders and immigration laws are artificial boundaries violating our individual freedom.

Any opinions about the subject?

Add a Comment »

Weapons of mass destruction. Freedom. Two arguments George Bush has been using to back the necessity of the Iraq war.

Well, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. With daily bomb attacks, kidnappings and political murders are Iraqis really freer than under Saddam?

In on sentence: the Iraq war has been a miserable failure.

Freedom remains the main argument for the war. However we can wonder how free Iraqis actually are with the increasing violence (bomb attacks, killings, kidnappings and so on) and frequent curfews.

Moreover the Abu Ghraib scandal (torture of prisoners) and other human rights abuses by the US army makes me ask one question: how does it make Iraqis freer? Sure, there were serious human right abuses under Saddam Hussein. Now the difference is that it’s not Saddam Hussein’s army or police committing them, it’s the US army as well as criminals.

The public opinion has finally shifted also in the United States: 68% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the Iraq war (source: CBS News). The public opinion begins to be reflected also in the political debate as a result of the US mid-term elections.

Bush has only bad options I have to say. Withdrawing from Iraq would leave the country insecure and would leave it in a civil war. The current situation isn’t good either as the army isn’t succeeding in stopping the violence.

The war shouldn’t have been started in the first place.

——
Picture taken by dragon_mg (www.sxc.hu)

3 Comments »

I wrote in an earlier post that a US officer (Watada) is risking jail for refusing to go to Iraq and for criticizing publicly the war. The court martial has ended for now in a mistrial as Watada hadn’t understood a document he had signed that was used against him in court (source: ABC News).

Will be interesting to follow the new trial that should take place in March. I’ll write about it on this blog:-)

Add a Comment »

A US army officer who refused to go to Iraq is facing court-martial (source: CBS News). Ehren Watada risks up to four years in prison for refusing to fight in Iraq and criticizing the war publicly.

Watada claims that the war on Iraq is illegal according to US laws. He claims also that he has a legal right and obligation to refuse to follow unlawful orders (ie the order to fight in Iraq).

This is once again an example of a totally unacceptable violation of the individual freedom. Refusing to serve and saying what you want to are basical rights that everyone should always have.

The state doesn’t have the right to limit the individual freedom unless it is necessary for the freedom of others. And it’s not the case here.

The court case already seems to have started in an unfair way as the court refused to analyze the legality of the war. The trial is unfair, because if the war is illegal Watada hasn’t actually committed a crime. Now he doesn’t have the chance to prove his innocence.

I see this court case also as an attack on the freedom on speech: Watada can face a jail term for publicly questioning the legality of the war in Iraq.

It’s very unfair that an army officer wouldn’t have the right to the freedom of speech (which is guaranteed in the first amendment of the American constitution). I’m not a law specialist so anyone who has more information about the first amendment in this case is welcome to comment.

Watada’s courage to stand behind his convictions can only be admired.

4 Comments »

Since the blogospher seems to be still discussing Saddam Hussein’s execution, I though it would be a good opportunity to comment the hanging and the death penalty in general.

As we know Saddam Hussein was hanged in the last days of last year. I have to say I actually see the execution as a human rights violation.

But don’t understand me wrong. Sure, Saddam Hussein had done many horrible things in his life and should have been punished for them. But even the worst criminals have rights. And the right to life is one of them.

The right to life is one of the most basical rights that everyone should have. It shouldn’t be a right that is earned by being a good citizen by following the rules of the society. No, it should be a right that everyone, even the worst criminals, has.

Jail is much more approriate than the death penalty for the worst crimes.

1 Comment »