Sunday, February 12, 2017


Just pondering the definition.  Yes, this is nuts in the age of rage where reflecting on anything in a logical manner is a clear sign of mental illness.  But here goes anyway:

"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it" - UN 1951 Refugee Convention.

Since this definition only permits males to become refugees, it was expanded later to include females with "his or her" verbiage.  Those are now the only two genders permitted among refugees.  

One observation is that you must be outside of your country first in order to be a refugee.  Thus, an illegal alien who commits a murder is formally a refugee, but someone born in the US who commits a murder in the US and is caught in the US is clearly not one.  

Then there is this religion things.  All of us claim to believe in absolute freedom of religion, but in practice we deny the rights of Druids and Mayans to perform human sacrifice and we are in denial about the Islamic command to "smite infidels".  

Another observation is that all refugees are "phobes" - that is, they are fearful of something, since fear is part of the definition.  Thus, I am not sure where they stand now that homophobes, islamophobes and the entire "phobe" movement stands condemned.  Something to point out here is that Nazi war criminals who fled to South America fully meet the definition of refugee.  On the other hand, someone who is by nature fearless can never be a refugee.  Then there are the Christians who are stuck in Mohammedan countries that they were born into.  These suffer by far the greatest persecution in the Middle East, but to travel away from their home area into another country means even more abuse and likely death at the hands of their persecutors, thus, they are excluded from being refugees.

I should leave this topic now.  Admittedly I hadn't given the definition much thought until recently, 


Rummuser said...

I fully understand the meaning as India has had the refugee problem from 1947 and it does not seem to go away. And your observation that one needs to be outside one's country also is inapplicable in our case as Hindus were thrown out of Kashmir by Muslime terrorists. The former claim to be refugees in their own land. There are also other cases when due to communal riots whole religious or caste groups relocate and they are called refugees as well as long there is another geographical location where they get refuge temporary to start with which inevitably becomes permanent over a period of time when going back to the original place becomes impossible.

Max Coutinho said...


I think you have thought it through in depth. The word "Refugees", like most of the words and concepts today, is being manipulated according to the expedience of the moment. And then we have the word "Migrant" that suddenly is to draw as much compassion as "Refugee", what?
And how about the irony we are witnessing now? Dems are losing their mind, artists are making a fool of themselves, all without having read one single line of what the Trump Adm. has ordered...oh the level of ignorance *nodding*. Not eve the Tea Party was this stupid in their opposition to President Obama (ok, maybe, when they said he was a Muslim and other nonsensical things)...

Oy, we are living in interesting times, indeed.


Looney said...

@Rummuser, sounds like India would be a good place to reconsider the definition of a refugee.

Looney said...

@Max, one of the strangest relationships in history is the one between the Left and the Mohammedans. The Left is a religious movement that believes it is necessary to seek favor with the gods through abortions and sodomies. The Mohammedans are required under Sharia Law to kill both the abortionists and the Sodomites. But they both hate Christians and Jews, and that is enough for them to seek an alliance.

Max Coutinho said...


"But they both hate Christians and Jews, and that is enough for them to seek an alliance."