3 ms·

Explain what moral imperative we (Finland) have to keep goodwill mechanisms like open borders for refugees when there are hostile forces trying to abuse them.

Explain what moral imperative we (Finland) have to keep goodwill mechanisms like open borders for refugees when there are hostile forces trying to abuse them. I'll give you a bit of help, you can't use colonialism or similar usual guilt tripping against us because we have never engaged in that activity. (in fact, I believe Finland has had the most people forced into slavery per capita, by the hand of Russia of course - but that doesn't concern this discussion)

hef19898 3y ago
Moral imperative? Same as anyone else, human rights and human decency. If you want to close your borders with an agressive neighbor, by all means do so. Just don't call refugees a threat to national security if the only reason refugees can been seen as a threat a totally home made and self-inflicted (again, by each and every single EU member state and the EU itself). The reason for doing so is quite straight forward so: soft power. Western democracies relied a long time on the perception of championing human rights, on being the good guys. Just look at how bad the US looked during and after Vietnam. We in the West, especially the EU, lost a lot ofbthat clout and soft power since we are ok with thousands of people drowning unnecessarily in the Mediterranean. Now we do the same on our Eastern borders. Giving up moral high(er) ground, when said morals make up a huge part of your power, is stupid. Especially when you already have others using that weakness for almost a decade. Just regarding enslaved Fins: bavk during Zarist tines, serfdome was a Russian thing. And Finland still part of Russia. No actions, or lack thereof, in the past justifies actions in the present. At the most, they explain them.
- waihtis 3y ago
  Hahah. Oh right, its our fault that refugees embark the sea on seaunworthy vessels. In other news, wet streets cause rain.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It is our fault to conduct illegal pushbacks, hinder search and rescue and generally not extend the basic rule of saving people in distress at sea to migrants. Yes, it absolutely is. And it is bad looks, when the human rights and democracy parading Europe stands by letting people drown. Which we totally do. It should give you pause to think so: the risk of the journey is clear to everyone, the risknof loosing your life and your loved ones either somewhere in the desert or at sea. And regardless, people embark on that journey. Just image how desperate one has to be to do so, how utterly fucked up life at your home has to be. At the very least, we all couod afford and extend some compassion to people having much harder lives than we do. And by the way, compassion is not weakness or softness, quite the opposite actually, it is people eho refuse to show it that are too weak to accept and face their oen fears and insecurities. You know, the difference between the real tough ones and the wannabes.

hef19898 3y ago

Moral imperative? Same as anyone else, human rights and human decency. If you want to close your borders with an agressive neighbor, by all means do so. Just don't call refugees a threat to national security if the only reason refugees can been seen as a threat a totally home made and self-inflicted (again, by each and every single EU member state and the EU itself). The reason for doing so is quite straight forward so: soft power. Western democracies relied a long time on the perception of championing human rights, on being the good guys. Just look at how bad the US looked during and after Vietnam. We in the West, especially the EU, lost a lot ofbthat clout and soft power since we are ok with thousands of people drowning unnecessarily in the Mediterranean. Now we do the same on our Eastern borders. Giving up moral high(er) ground, when said morals make up a huge part of your power, is stupid. Especially when you already have others using that weakness for almost a decade. Just regarding enslaved Fins: bavk during Zarist tines, serfdome was a Russian thing. And Finland still part of Russia. No actions, or lack thereof, in the past justifies actions in the present. At the most, they explain them.

waihtis 3y ago
Hahah. Oh right, its our fault that refugees embark the sea on seaunworthy vessels. In other news, wet streets cause rain.
- hef19898 3y ago
  It is our fault to conduct illegal pushbacks, hinder search and rescue and generally not extend the basic rule of saving people in distress at sea to migrants. Yes, it absolutely is. And it is bad looks, when the human rights and democracy parading Europe stands by letting people drown. Which we totally do. It should give you pause to think so: the risk of the journey is clear to everyone, the risknof loosing your life and your loved ones either somewhere in the desert or at sea. And regardless, people embark on that journey. Just image how desperate one has to be to do so, how utterly fucked up life at your home has to be. At the very least, we all couod afford and extend some compassion to people having much harder lives than we do. And by the way, compassion is not weakness or softness, quite the opposite actually, it is people eho refuse to show it that are too weak to accept and face their oen fears and insecurities. You know, the difference between the real tough ones and the wannabes.