- 40
- Calgary
- Biggles-1961
With the current political situation in Russia, should the race go ahead ? Bernie only cares about money, so I'm sure he wants the race to be held. But would the FIA consider cancelling ?
As @Rage Racer about the Russian perspective on this: a democratically-elected, if domestically-unpopular government led by Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by a civilian coup despite no clear constitutional power to do so. Yanukovych, an ally of the Kremlin, immediately sought the assistance of Moscow, which he was well within his rights to do so under the terms of an alliance between Russia and Ukraine. In the time since, Moscow has been providing political, economic and military support to an insurgency opposed to a government that it sees as illegitimate. More to the point, Moscow has argued that this is in line with the United States' policy of supporting insurgencies around the world. It's not necessarily a view I agree with, but it does change things.With the current political situation in Russia, should the race go ahead ?
What's wrong about current political situation IN Russia? Everything is calm here. The only difference from what's been before is the presence of Ukrainian refugees. In Krasnodar Krai, where Sochi is situated, there are quite many of them, because this region is quite close to Ukraine. But far enough so Ukrainian shells or rockets cannot hit Sochi.With the current political situation in Russia, should the race go ahead ?
It's not really a safety concern - it's an ethical one. The race is happening with support from the Russian government; the same government that is facing international condemnation for its actions in Ukraine. For the race to go ahead, it would be a tacit approval of the Kremlin's policies and out of step with the international community.As for Russia, I'm not to concerned as they recently had a live practice for securing a high profile event in the Winter Olympics so there shouldn't be any concerns safety wise.
Yeah but we're the good guys.You don't cancel anything in United States when they invade anyone or back rebels in Syria, right? Then what's wrong about RF?
It's not really a safety concern - it's an ethical one.
I'm more worried about drug cartels affecting the proposed Mexican GP (there are actual safety concerns there).
Precisely - just look at Australia and our policies for addressing asylum seekers arriving illegally. Our government has introduced mandatory detention and offshore processing, which means illegal arrivals are held indefinitely in what equates to a low-security prison outside our borders. Those who do get processed are resettled on other countries, usually ones that are not signatories to the UN conventions on the treatment of refugees. There have been serious problems with substandard health care, ongoing mental health problems among detainees, and unrest among local populations who don't want the detention facilities nearby. Just about every humanitarian group, UN agency and Senate committee has criticised the policy, but the whole thing is under the jurisdiction of the navy, so the government can classify it as a national security issue and avoid discussing any element of it. It's absolutely shameful and we're almost certainly heading for a Royal Commission into it (but the current government is also using a Royal Commission to target its political opponents, so the system is losing its credibility).Once you go down that road you realize we probably wouldn't even have an F1 considering most of the countries on the calender have violated human rights at some point or another in recent history (recent meaning in the last century).
Just saying, I think it's a great policy. They're illegal immigrants for a reason, after all, and should be treated as such. When some of them are known to dispose of their identities to make it impossible to return them wherever they came from, it's best to at least do something to prevent them from straining the economy. I know, I know, you can always give them low-paying jobs as cleaners and whatnot, but I'd rather not reward them for the aforementioned tactical identity ditching.Precisely - just look at Australia and our policies for addressing asylum seekers arriving illegally. Our government has introduced mandatory detention and offshore processing, which means illegal arrivals are held indefinitely in what equates to a low-security prison outside our borders. Those who do get processed are resettled on other countries, usually ones that are not signatories to the UN conventions on the treatment of refugees. There have been serious problems with substandard health care, ongoing mental health problems among detainees, and unrest among local populations who don't want the detention facilities nearby. Just about every humanitarian group, UN agency and Senate committee has criticised the policy, but the whole thing is under the jurisdiction of the navy, so the government can classify it as a national security issue and avoid discussing any element of it. It's absolutely shameful and we're almost certainly heading for a Royal Commission into it (but the current government is also using a Royal Commission to target its political opponents, so the system is losing its credibility).
So why is it that we can have a race, but Russia can't?
You do know that our government has negotiated directly with the Assad regime to repatriate Syrian refugees that they don't recognise as having valid claims to asylum, despite a three-year civil war? So can you blame them when they dump their identities?Just saying, I think it's a great policy. They're illegal immigrants for a reason, after all, and should be treated as such. When some of them are known to dispose of their identities to make it impossible to return them wherever they came from, it's best to at least do something to prevent them from straining the economy. I know, I know, you can always give them low-paying jobs as cleaners and whatnot, but I'd rather not reward them for the aforementioned tactical identity ditching.
Why are Syrians fleeing across the globe to Australia when there are several safe options near them? Such as Turkey, right in the neighbor?You do know that our government has negotiated directly with the Assad regime to repatriate Syrian refugees that they don't recognise as having valid claims to asylum, despite a three-year civil war? So can you blame them when they dump their identities?
I'm not saying they should be treated badly. However, locking them up isn't treating them badly, it's a wise precaution.Nobody is asking that the borders be thrown open and that the asylum seekers be given free reign - only that they be treated with dignity. When you have asylum seekers threatening self-harm, dying of treatable infections and being killed by unruly locals, you know something is seriously wrong. And then for the government to dress it up as a national security issue to avoid awkward questions makes me think that there is something rotten in the ACT. Mandatory detention, offshore processing and national security make for an unholy trifecta.
I guess I'm the only one who thinks appealing to emotion in political arguments is immoral.I've taught refugee kids before. Most of them have legitimate claims, but some of them have been in mandatory detention. We're not supposed to know, but then again, we don't have to be told. You can pick them out. All of them have seen horrors, but these kids ... they've seen something else.
Because Turkey won't accept them. They've cracked down on the Kurds in the past, and Erdogan has shown a willingness to stamp out any kind of dissent. And if ISIL get a foothold there, any refugees could be caught in a bloody crossfire.Why are Syrians fleeing across the globe to Australia when there are several safe options near them? Such as Turkey, right in the neighbor?
Strange argument to make - that appealing to emotion over an immoral policy is itself immoral.I guess I'm the only one who thinks appealing to emotion in political arguments is immoral.
Weird. But Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, so surely any Muslim country nearby would gladly accept refugees, right?Because Turkey won't accept them. They've cracked down on the Kurds in the past, and Erdogan has shown a willingness to stamp out any kind of dissent. And if ISIL get a foothold there, any refugees could be caught in a bloody crossfire.
Immorality is subjective.Strange argument to make - that appealing to emotion over an immoral policy is itself immoral.
The point I'm trying to make here is that if you deny Russia a race on political or moral grounds, where do you draw the line? If you are going to deny Russia, then you must deny Australia. We have done plenty in the past eighteen months that could be used to have our race taken away.
And all of them are under threat from ISIL.Weird. But Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, so surely any Muslim country nearby would gladly accept refugees, right?![]()
Again, you miss my point. People are trying to suggest that the Russian Grand Prix should be boycotted over the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine. But once you start doing that, it's a slippery slope that easily ends in hypocrisy. Why should Russia lose its race for its actions in Donbass, but Australia is allowed to keep its race despite its border protection policies?Weird to see you cracking down so hard on Australia, when you got China with the crazy censorship, Malaysia with its anti-gay laws and India, making a possible return, with the cast system. All of those I consider real problems, unlike the alleged bad treatment of illegal individuals in a country that is far above those aforementioned three in terms of civilization.
Weird. But Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, so surely any Muslim country nearby would gladly accept refugees, right?
Immorality is subjective.
Weird to see you cracking down so hard on Australia, when you got China with the crazy censorship, Malaysia with its anti-gay laws and India, making a possible return, with the cast system. All of those I consider real problems, unlike the alleged bad treatment of illegal individuals in a country that is far above those aforementioned three in terms of civilization.
Just saying, I think it's a great policy. They're illegal immigrants for a reason, after all, and should be treated as such. When some of them are known to dispose of their identities to make it impossible to return them wherever they came from, it's best to at least do something to prevent them from straining the economy. I know, I know, you can always give them low-paying jobs as cleaners and whatnot, but I'd rather not reward them for the aforementioned tactical identity ditching.
I'm pretty sure Iran has sufficient military technology to easily protect its borders. It's also closer to Syria than Australia.And all of them are under threat from ISIL.
Well, you said it there in the bolded part. I have always thought countries should protect their borders with everything they've got. The EU and US are pretty much lost causes because they have given up on this, but at least Australia still has the stones to fight the stream of illegals.Again, you miss my point. People are trying to suggest that the Russian Grand Prix should be boycotted over the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine. But once you start doing that, it's a slippery slope that easily ends in hypocrisy. Why should Russia lose its race for its actions in Donbass, but Australia is allowed to keep its race despite its border protection policies?
I guess now I can start that Team Daily Mail you were talking about long ago?Well aren't you a bastion of humanism! I've seen Daily Mail comments with more empathy.