Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
1–10 of 198 posts
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#2> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional
So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#3> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
Pretty much this
I understand the refugees are in a difficult position, but there is a limit to the help that can be given (which should be obvious)
If MSF doesn't want the money that's fine.
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#4> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
How about Europe taking responsibility for their interventionist policies in the Middle East and their support for the US military agenda in the Middle East which created most of these problems in the first place?
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#5> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
How about Europe taking responsibility for their interventionist policies in the Middle East and their support for the US military agenda in the Middle East which created most of these problems in the first place?
First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.
Secondly, many countries inside Europe have opposed US military actions in the Middle East.
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#6> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
There are many cases where helping others is legally mandatory. For instance, if you find somebody stranded at sea.
But we are talking about countries here, so legality is not the issue. The issue is, in my opinion, that for years, the EU have sold itself as an humanist endeavour.
There is also the issue that we, Europeans, are responsible for a lot of what this people is running away.
There is also the practical issue that hide one's head in the sand it's not going to solve the problem.
Oh, and there are ethics, of course. But that is a boring unfashionable issue, so we will forget about it.
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#7> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
They are specifically talking about "sending a message that caring is optional". Not quite the same thing.
Going on your second question, there are good arguments on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted.
The strongest for me are 1) if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral 2) more pragmatically, by not being charitable and solidarity, you imply a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be. That to me is delusional and suboptimal, since at any point a blood clot could render you helpless.
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Europe taking responsibility for their interventionist policies in the Middle East and their support for the US military agenda in the Middle East which created most of these problems in the first place?
First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does. Secondly, many countries inside Europe have opposed US military actions in the Middle East.
> First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.
Germany, France and the UK (which actively supported interventions in the Middle East) contribute ~50% of the EU budget - it's silly to even suggest that these laws are being passed without their support.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#9This is a perfect example of the rise of our civil society. Awesome!!
Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore
#10> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
Because the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the EU countries are signatory, gives special status to refugees. This status is not the same as simply "admitting foreign citizens."
For example:
> The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.