Morality Dissolution, Dilemmas.

Morality Dissolution, Dilemmas:

The ‘short-hand’ expressions for understanding this word ‘moral’ (as in moralities) and its use is, as it applies to European languages relates to some form of acceptable standards, relative to primarily, good (or suspiciously bad) behaviour applied with honesty, ethically and fairness etc that a number of people or individually believe in that guides their actions. Often ‘moral’ (morals) is wrapped in religious doctrinal or construed legal analysis (or interpretations) but it is not a word with a definitive standard, for it possibly will have attached to it differences when put within a different country / racial cultural context, or any overall dissimilar social ambiance uses as to what is ‘normal’ and therefore positioned as moral in that particular context. This anglicized description of moral (morals) being associated to righteous morality seems simple enough and perhaps most people will have, for themselves, a defined understanding of it and could give their reasons or specific example as why or what they think is moral conduct that would support their claim of understanding what relates to ‘morals and morality’. Often this will fall into the catch all of something simplistically being right and wrong with some reference points and it could just also be a visceral opinion; validated in, it just feels right or wrong.

Unfortunately the short hand expressions one offered is only useful in unified, mostly homogenous cultures that have developed advancement to known allusions, a general consensus, which has arrived at some form of acceptability and compatibility to the functioning of its civilisation, balancing what is accommodating against what may be detrimental yet have inherent flexibility to adapt as cultural conditions transform. With this it may be said that morals cannot be or should not be prescriptive and having a simplistic observation of what is ‘moral’ might be satisfying and form a basis of ‘how things are done’ at a particular point but it can be a hindrance to hold any definitive view for it has a multitude of complexity attached to it that can be examined which can tear it apart. However one may assume that a fundamental essence, of what is deemed to be judge moralistic performance is not ignored, which it is hoped is for the quintessence of it to be for the greater good, to treat all humans with paramount humanity and reciprocity. Nevertheless such essence has not been for everyone, there are created practical and philosophical exclusions and it has not been for all time (See (1) or any other Ref.)

Though perhaps at best, for the sake of this opined opening, it is knowing what is right or wrong allowed within a belief system and as required, undertaking actions accordingly – hopefully for the good but not necessarily so at a particular time. Yet some deeds might still hold to being moralistic, where such exist but may not be recognised by an outside bystander inculcated by different mores. The course of moral rectitude, for the west, has been created by the fraught enlightenment from off significant historic deeds and it may have been supported by the creation of different religious doctrinaires that sought to control a populace using alleged godly script authorising or to have proscribed certain acts / behaviours according to the demands of the hierarchy with elements of fashioned morality absorbed into legal frames as conveniences.

This takes one to a relatively recent, outstanding persistent and growing dangerous problem. One which has been created from the urgent need to do ‘good’ to counteract the bad at the time past but has become extended beyond conceivable (it is assumed) intent. A problem so serious that it has the capacity to destroy the ability to continue to meet the ideals that may have been the inspirations to provide an appearance of moralistic certitude that permeates the continuation of the ‘good’ intents.

As so much of, what is taken as the current modern world, has a specific point of construction with linked dynamic occurrences, one of which for the sake of this opinion occurred from the late 1930’s onwards and for most elements of it still in the living memory of some souls but of diminishing importance as youth supersedes remembrances; the specific occurrence being a war, the impact and after-effects that gave rise to a need to offer asylum to limited desperate / persecuted people from countries with corrupted governance that were intent on deliberately doing them harm. The Council of Europe formed after the war meet in Strasburg during 1949 and The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was officially drafted by the twelve member states of the Council of Europe with members of the council being drawn from across the nations of Europe. Participating were 100 parliamentarians assembled to draft the charter that was ratified in 1951 with the UK being the first nation to sign up to it. (2)

Since its creation most signatories have held to the principles of the charter and provided assistance too claiming asylum seekers; essentially those whom are clearly and identifiably at risk from imminent maltreatment and threat to life by vicious administrations. And due to the nature of some 20th /21st century conflicts there has been a rise in the numbers of displaced person in danger from those conflicts in underdeveloped countries and some people look to gain an assumed temporary safer habitat as specified by the Charter Acts from those countries who may be in close proximity to the distressed areas. The character of conflicts and war does produce transient population shifts but those affected may not be under direct personal threat from those administering the conflict, they are the ‘by product’ and under the Charter are given refuge/asylum, however this may be a deviation from the intent of the original stimulus in drawing up ECHR and the principles involved in the writing it had no thought of how economic changes, social dynamics, terror-torial (territorial) administration pressures and movement easing would influence the rise in asylum seeking. There was (one thinks) no intention or consideration applied to the idea of wholesale migration of people for economic reasons, for a more fruitful lifestyle, one that was unobtainable in a poor administrated country.

The events of the past decades have overtaken the good intent of the charter, it may have been originally assumed it would be a fallback position to help avoid the populace damaged seen in the previous two wars of the persecution of specific people that were centred on the developed countries of Europe. It was for that reason the instigation of the charter was drafted in the hope that it would be a binding humanitarian proposition for the countries of Europe, provide closer working undertakings and supporting peace between these previous warring European nations. There is no stipulation that the ECHR should be an all encompassing global document other than for those countries that signed up to it at the time but there was the (possibly?) weak aspiration that it would be applicable to some other undefined countries that wish to adhere to its inbuilt morality. Many countries have not and in the main it has been the 47 western European countries that have moved with the Acts of the Charter with some 4 others listed as “observers” by being not based in Europe. There are no signatories from any country states of the Eastern ‘European’ main land, Middle East, whole of Asia, or African continent, all mostly un-affiliated to the ideals of ‘human rights’ and do not pursue for the advanced objectives of accountable democracy that links into the fundamentals of ECHR.

With the application of steps taken to implement the ECHR over the years by the main proponent of the charters, first in the easy willingness to provide asylum for those that are persecuted for provable reasons and the later large allowance of foreign workers to be employed into labour intensive jobs in Europe has created a pool of localised concentrated areas of non Europeans whose assimilation into a European culture is limited, retaining much of their natural heritage and also maintaining strong links to wherever they located from. This is to be expected, similarity of cultural attachment, does help bind compatible social interaction ‘in a strange land’ and the process of naturalisation could take decades, onto this has been the incremental rise of allowable migration. However, perhaps over the past 3 decades the process of having flexible foreign workers and selective migration has become too easy; it has been hiding the vulnerability of economic labour exploitation impacting the young of Europe and undermining some traditional labour sectors with the liberal assistance provided by some countries to encourage migration; acting a draw to other peoples for a better life style.

What is seen occurring now in Europe, is the result of a slow composite decline of many countries not directly related to central Europe? This decline is evidenced economically, politically, environmentally and via conflicts from various precursors. It is from countries of the unaffiliated areas that the push to escape into Europe has burst out and has resulted in the beginning of mass people movement to escape to any safe stable havens in Europe. Some have been held back at ‘staging points’ in Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain and Jordan, but many with the aid of people smuggles transit into more affluent central European countries by-passing, as possible , border controls. Of late there has been the appalling development of the practically ‘weaponised’ of the mass movement of people, helped and encourage to gatecrash up to the borders or Europe by Russia and Belarus in order to force a discomforting confrontation and gain a decrease in sanctions on those countries which has been applied by Europe for their hostile actions. By aiding such mass movement with the prospect of getting into Europe it raises unrealistic expectation of a better life for desperate people, unless some manage to slip in. In any event there has been a dramatic rise in successful illegal incursions with many wishing to claim asylum that have to be processed to ascertain who may have a ‘right ‘ too it and amongst them all are many that are really economic migrants attempting to claim themselves as asylum seekers. No matter how an entry is made into Europe, the refugee/migrant is entitled to register in the first county of entry for “asylum”. They do not have to do so and many may choose to press on to a better opportunity country where they may have a language appropriate to the country of 'choice', a usable skill or loose debatable family connections to use as some qualification before they register for “asylum”.

Countries that have been landed with unsought migration have found the whole process of asylum and migration has become fraught with difficulties as it takes considerable time and resources to ‘prove’ a case is valid. There is legitimate allowable migration handle by individual countries that are approached normally and as it is selective, numbers are limited primarily to those that have resources and skills that can be easily used in the hosting country. When a non affiliated country is under stress many people do not choose to be a lawful applicant hence everyone that gains entry into Europe from whatever source and then claims to be an asylum applicant cannot be rejected until processed. It can take months to years.

Today there are hundreds of thousands (and it cannot be ignored maybe into the million+, using Turkey as an example with it ‘hosting’ 4 million refugees) potentially pressing to enter into Europe, which itself has no effective restrictive border control into it nor between each member country. The internal tension and financial cost being placed upon the unwitting ‘hosting’ country without any EU overall strategy to control the flow (this being province of individual countries) is resulting in a few taking independent action and erecting border barriers and forcing people back. The recent scenes in Greece, Italy and latterly Poland/Belarus are stark indicators of the pressure of mass migration; it can only get considerable worse.

So far the indigenous peoples of European countries, have in the main, been remarkable acquiescent and willing to absorb or ignore the volume influx of migrants. To some extent this unsought assent relies on their good humanitarian (?) nature, charitableness and no doubt having some sympathy for the troubles the migration people have gone through but there are signs that this is subtly changing. The more border incursions occur particularly with forcefully intent aided by people smugglers, that draws ‘customers’ from none EU countries having conflicts, producing poverty, economy collapse with unstoppable environment degradation advantaged by useful political border bribery, all of which seem increasing likely; will make the position of Europe’s open borders and the expansive broad application of the ECHR less tenable. How can it not, if there is an incremental fall in the accepted living standards and conditions of an element of European peoples, having to absorb and provide for unlimited tens of thousands of migrants and asylum claimants etc, if they cannot provide adequately for an assortment of their own indigenous people?

There will be many that would not countenance a retraction of any part of the assumed moral obligations encapsulated in the ECHR to offer any and all aid as required. For them they will believe that they hold too and have an unquestioning morality built on their particular beliefs. This stance may only hold for as long as someone else – the state, is picking up the long-term logistical/financial obligations to any or all migrants and that such does not discomfort their own personal position. What would be the attitude off passionate believers of the unrestrained ECHR if they were to be asked to foster personally; to pay for housing, upkeep, education, health etc of a number of deserving migrants? Maybe their moral fibre will be exceedingly robust to bear such obligations? On the other hand there will be many that have objections to volume questionable refugee, immigration and migrations, for reasons that may not be anti moralistic but on practical grounds of fragile integration, overall resources use and availability, suspect asylum justification and locale displacement due to numerical concentration of aliens. Luckily none of the above have a real choice in the direction of immigration / migration / asylum policy use, nor are complex opinions sought to the mass migration of people especially if opines conflict with the script held by Politian’s (as in the UK and most of Europe) that all forms of immigrations are fine for the hosting country aiding (unsuccessful?) multi-culturism and it has economic, enriching cultural benefits, albeit that the methodology used in determining such, is (one suggest) suspect reliant on too narrow indices.

Having played with all the above, the point now is this: Does the west, for all time, have a moral duty to aid asylum seekers, or dubious asylum prospectors, or opportune economic migrants, refugees or mass migration for any reason under any circumstances propped and bound by that ECHR? Now that is something one can answer but is scarcely qualified to do so on the grounds of optional moralistic prejudice but consider this:-

ECHR is now under delicate threat just from the pressures being exerted on the borders of EU with countries unable to respond with Union unanimity to the mass flows and as the UK government has said; it will not have to hold to all the articles or the convention itself as it implements the incorporation into UK law, what it thinks “useful” from the conclusion of Brexit transition and from that committed to “getting our border back”. Which, so far as controlling borders and therefore the incursions of illegal migrants is concerned getting into england has proved completely fallacious since considerably more people have made a channel crossing into england at 25,500 over the past two years, 2020/21 than any time previous and hardly any have been returned! Associated to this is an EU law, called Dublin III, it allows asylum seekers to be transferred back to the first member state (or the last) they were proven to have entered from. The UK is no longer part of this arrangement as it has now left the European Union. No comparable agreement has been reached by the UK to replace it making it considerable more difficulty to force a returnee as it requires cooperation from a landing or original country of origin. And if that country is in a state of civil conflict to produce refugees, there is the obligation to assist whoever; for their safety they are bound by an extensive liberal and flexible interpretation of any number of the ECHR articles. (See Article list headings 3)

There is a contentious tack of refoulement (rebutting access see 4). Non refoulement guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. Without any assessment of the applicability of an “asylum” refugee nature, as taken latterly by Poland (and Italy and Greece) or any country using refoulement, can fall foul with the Geneva Convention on human and many other elements of “rights” lawfully wrapped and shrouded with the mantle of moral obligations. Even though within Articles 15 and 18 of the ECHR some restrictive actions can be allowed. No country of the EU has risked taking large scale active refoulement action due to the opprobrium it would entail. There is a view that the EU and its countries must under any circumstances and by extension the UK, provide to the nth degree vital humanitarian aid and assistance to those trapped onto borders and any that enter illegally via mass migration. For those claiming asylum or any other reason, no matter from where they come, is to be given due process. Given the scale of the growing problem, there is a lack of willingness to be enthusiastic in pursuing due process, for the first country to do so it takes on uncounted obligations, preferring instead to pass the problem on. Refoulement will increase, as sampled by the UK which has sent a little military ‘support’ to Poland’s / Belarus border eager to demonstrate its direction of intent on mass immigration issues. Behind this are the questions; can the EU/EEC ignore, as it does as a body, the implications of its severe charters and remedial inaction? Is it right that the problems of mass migration be left to the nearest unfortunate individual countries to carry? Can countries blithely ignore the rights of its own citizens with high migration dislocation impacts on their safety and wellbeing without expecting there to be trouble at some stage? Some might refer to the Thatcher declaration No,No,No.

As of the 24th Nov, 27 people killed themselves from one boat, (it is thought there may have been loss from others) taking their own risk in trying to cross the channel not knowing that the channel is not like any other water they may be used to, it isn’t a lake, nor placid, it’s very busy, and cold with limited weather predictability. From this the PM of the UK and France want to try and break “the business model” of smugglers that encourage such trade and find some way of stopping the flow. One might say there is little chance in doing that; this is not purely a UK or French issue it is a European one that will not be eased unless there is a much wider and harder use of refoulement that all EU countries implement and adopt a disruptive media push back onto the informal lines of communication the migrant use to share pathways of infiltration. The prevailing pressures that are causing the mass movements are not likely to disappear and once the possibility of a better life style might be gained, humans’ nature is to seize advantage. There is an accusation that the UK is not taking its “fair share” of all migrants compared to other EU countries and many migrants want to get to the UK in preference to claiming asylum elsewhere. There appears to be no assessment as to what a fair share is; is it based on percentage of population, availability of spare underused resources, GDP, desirability, equality in number spread around the nations, receptiveness and accessibility or the strength of some moral imperative – to do the good and right thing is only fair? There will be a lot of emollient phrases spoken attached to the deaths and desperate attempts via asylum / migration to gain refuge in a safe country and from this loss of life that occurs it spurs sentiment that “something must be done” but what happens when that fair share number is reached, how are the unwanted returned?

Due to the above situation outlines, there is a multitude of arguments around the problems of asylum and migrants and how to “solve” the issues raised by the attempts of mass migration. There are practical ones related to migrant desire to be in their country of choice, like the UK, for they receive better assistance and is readily available. Of the EU countries 28 have identity cards without which migrant cannot get access to a nations support assistance, they can if they register on first point of entry, some chose not to and end up in Calais to run the Channel. The UK does not have any ID cards and is perhaps seen easier to disappear into, it is very accommodating to migrants and is said to have the best 'pull' factors. There is a view that there should be no borders and people should be allowed to move wherever they desire, in the EU then into the UK. Free movement is enshrined in EU charters for Europeans but it does not necessarily apply to non EU countries, although some people for moral, righteous, charitable, environmental, historic reparation reasons etc. argue that it should. Yet since Brexit, unrestricted free movement no longer wholly applies to the peoples of UK entering into the EU either.

Some suggested solutions to the people mass movement revolves around the call for there to be tougher actions: - An instant 24 hour return of illegal’s to country of origin (France or elsewhere but without willing receptors, this is implausible) Or the establishment of clearing houses based in a number of EU or non EU countries to establish credibility, legitimacy and take identity / DNA checks for obtaining consideration to migration assistance, prior to relocation. But which country is voluntarily going to take that risk, at what cost and be left with having to deal with refused illegal’s? Or the application of ID cards within the UK without which no one can be given a nations support assistance (this has been rejected, so far). Or copy the tack of Australia and Greece, press back against incursions (refoulement) and refuse entry to any illegals caught. Within this making it clear that mass migration is not going to be allowed to work. No illegals will ever be given permission to stay and they will be deigned access to any public services; disregarding any created ‘family’ links, they will be eventually ejected. One can imagine the moral disquiet any of this could cause.

From all the above it might be seen that events may prove it impossible to avoid a reappraisal of the extensive application of the ECHR and the unwavering(?) moral principles that people hold for it, until that is, there is extenuating constraint for the dissolution of parts of them. Given that morals and morality has an extensive developed pedigree (for developed nation?) and can be dissembled into component parts that individuals will lean into as a bases of their own beliefs or understanding, often linked to some religious connotations and the ideas of what is ‘just right’ or ‘plane wrong’. It is little wonder that nations are being put on the sharp quandary difficulty of dealing with the international movement of peoples, they face considerably difficult public discomfort when trying to solve the problems that unplanned migrations etc causes. To a great extent the creation of ‘Charters of Rights’ is and was a bulwark to initially safeguard the peoples of Europe, yet has now become both a (possibly) unintended world licence to abuse and a moralistic barrier against the ability to enact any form of protection against ‘charter rights’ exploitation. Without unified adaptation to the Charters that Europeans can live with yielding some morality, may accelerate the undermining of the state of coexistence integration of the European Union. Inconsistency in held principles can proliferate, is there acceptable deviations with morality in knowing and allowing that there are undeserved rich and undeserved poor, affluent nations and impecunious ones, how or when is it morally acceptable to make or pursue war, is there a deserved status, an ambiguity, which supersedes any form of applied morality?

There may always be call for Europe (or A N Other) to help the less able from conflicts and impoverished situations and indeed it will help, but must it? For how many millions (?) can Europe or any country of it, take in, before it weakens the structures of its own cohesions, breaks the morality expectations of their own people of countries that must have a mandate to consider them first. Occasional there are time when it can never be a duplicitous position of assuming rights or wrongs of actions, at times it is absolutely a matter of doing what is necessary for it is probably true, countries and people cannot help anyone from a position of weakness.

Anyway what does one know about all this, it is complex subject resplendent in myriad opinions too cul-de-sacs, concealing traversable necessities however in this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given unexpected offense too, albeit oftentimes unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issue; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offense. This to any that have had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case, anyhow by the time any of this matters, one will have gone home.

© Renot 2711211504

(1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moral (1) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition (2) www.echr.coe.int. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

(3) Heading List: Article 1: Obligation to respect human rights. Respect every individual’s human rights, as set out in the Convention itself. Article 2: Right to life. Right to life, and not be killed by another person, protect people’s lives by enforcing the law, protecting those in danger, and safeguard against accidental deaths. Article 3: Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Under any circumstances, no one can torture or abuse anyone else... Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour. Not to be made a slave or forced to work against their will.... Article 5: Right to liberty and security..... Article 6: Right to a fair trial. Article 7: No punishment without law. All crimes should be clearly defined by the law..... Article 8: Right to respect privacy and family life. To family life, home, private life, and correspondence... Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 10: Freedom of expression. To hold our own opinions, express views, ideas, and can protect the right to express views that some may find unpopular or offensive. Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association. Article 12: Right to marry. Article 13: Right to an effective remedy through legal means. Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination. Article 15: Derogation in time of emergency. A state can choose to ignore some specific rights in the ECHR at a time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation but must adhere to International Law. Article 16: Restriction on political activity of non-nationals. Article 17: Prohibition of abuse of rights. No state, group or individual to destroy the rights and freedoms that the convention protects.... Article 18: Limitation on use of restriction of rights. Controlled by the convention and Protocols itself.

(4) www.ohchr.org (Office of the High Commissioner OHCHR): The principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law.