European Union makes Tilos dwarf elephants invisible


Tilos dwarf elephant reconstruction

This photo shows the reconstruction of a prehistoric dwarf elephant, found on Tilos island in Greece.

From the Aegean Islands site in Greece:

Tilos is a gem of the Dodecanese islands, rich in both culture and natural beauty, and its breathtaking views represent much of its charm. From peculiar wildlife and spectacular flowers to magnificent historic villages and pure-white secluded beaches, there’s absolutely nothing you can’t find on the dazzling little island.

If you’re searching for an adventure on a lost island, how about a peek at the fossilized bones of dwarf elephants? For those interested into the island’s past, they will truly fascinate you.

On the left hand side of the road to Megalo Chorio is the Charkadio Cave where the remains of dwarf elephants were discovered in 1971. The cave is not open to the public as excavations are still not completed. In this cave also neolithic ceramics and tools made of stone have been found, just as deer bones from a much older date than the bones of the elephants (about 140.000 BC).

… Nearby the entrance, you will see the construction of a new museum which will eventually contain the finds inside the cave.

… These dwarf elephants lived on the island until about 4000 BC.

The bones of thousands of elephants have been found in the cave and this discovery was one of the first to establish the existence of elephants in Europe.

Wikipedia also mentions the dwarf elephants of Tilos, and the exhibition about them.

On 1 May 2019, we saw the brand new paleontological museum, where the elephant fossils and other finds were supposed to go. However, the building was very empty and very closed.

That evening, we heard why. The European Union told Tilos that the museum was only allowed to open if visitors would pay at least six euros. Tilos did not want that, as that would mean employing a cashier whose wages would cost more than incoming entry fees. As not that many tourists come to Tilos; the museum is a bit in the middle of nowhere; and not many tourists and Tilos inhabitants would want to pay six euros to see the small museum. Though more would come if the museum would be free.

According to the European Union, a museum should be a business out to make a profit. European Union bureaucrats are apparently better at reading the novels of pro-capitalist propagandist and Donald Trump favourite Ayn Rand than at reading books on paleontology or other sciences. Museums should be about scientific research and informing the public about science for free, not about profits.

After this 1 May 2019 elephant interlude, the blog posts on Tilos will resume in proper chronological order. So, stay tuned!

Libya, European Union-subsidized hell for refugees


This video is called EXCLUSIVE: Full incident of 06 November 2017 with the Libyan Coast Guard.

Translated from Maite Vermeulen, 24 April 2019, on Dutch site De Correspondent:

At the end of 2017, a boat with 150 African migrants sank on the Mediterranean Sea. Some drown, some are brought to Italy, some disappear in a hellish Libyan detention center. 17 survivors are now taking legal action. And it may turn the entire European Union migration policy upside down. …

It is becoming increasingly difficult to rescue migrants in distress in the Mediterranean as the Libyan Coast Guard acts more and more aggressively in international waters.

The Libyans don’t do that for fun, but for money. The Libyan Coast Guard is funded, equipped and coordinated by Italy and the EU. That’s how we save migrants from drowning, is the official story. And, oh yes, nicely included: fewer migrants arrive in Europe this way. Because the Libyans take the migrants back to their own coast and put them there in detention centers.

That makes people in this room furious, especially researcher Charles Heller. He believes that the violence that these migrants endure in Libya, while according to international treaties they are entitled to a fair asylum procedure, is the greatest injustice of our time.

Hence the subject of the meeting: strategic litigation. … Start a lawsuit in the hope that this will result in case law that forces countries to review their policies.

… Heller’s work has previously been the basis for such strategic matters. He is at the helm of Forensic Oceanography, a research project at the University of London that reconstructs human rights violations at sea.

According to international and European law you cannot send refugees back to countries like Libya, where their life or freedom are at risk.

The question that now keeps Heller awake is: how can you hold Europe legally responsible for the actions of the Libyan coast guard? Or, as he says in his characteristic tone – thoughtfully but confidently – to the group in Paris: “How do you translate violence into violations?” …

Patrick has not slept for more than 24 hours. But there is no room to sit anywhere, let alone lie. They are packed like animals. They have not received any food, no drinks. With water from the toilet bowl in the corner, he flushed the salt from his mouth. He has scratches and bruises everywhere from the fighting on the sinking boat.

His daughter is dead. He knows for sure. In the wave caused by the Libyan coast guard ship, he saw the man holding her disappear overboard.

When he was pulled onto the deck of the Libyan ship, it was chaos – men and women were separated, the Libyans beat people with ropes.

He has seen his wife there, but he has not been able to talk to her.

Patrick is pushed around the prison, he is not allowed to stand anywhere. Fuck off, get out. A man taps him on the shoulder: asks if he’s from Benin City, too. ‘Yes Yes! I had a clothing store there”, says Patrick. The man gives him a place where he can crawl on his side against a wall. …

“It is possible that this case can prove Europe’s complicity in refoulement and death of migrants at sea, using all the video material and the recordings of radio traffic.” …

In Libya, where Samuel hoped to find work, he was abducted, sold at a slave market and forced to work day in, day out at a tomato farm.

After eight months he managed to escape, in the chaos of fighting between two armed groups. A Libyan who felt sorry for him said he could take him to a safe place in Egypt. Only on the rubber boat did he hear that they were going to Europe.

Samuel kept himself alive for more than two hours before being pulled aboard by one of Sea-Watch’s speedboats. When a boy who could not swim pulled him under water, he thought he would die. But he managed to drag him up and grab a life jacket. That way they both stayed afloat. …

When Charles Heller sees the images for the first time, he thinks: What have we done? It suddenly comes in: European Union policy has made the sea a deadly liquid.

The gigantic inequality in the value of human lives – he had never before seen that so clearly.

And that makes this case absolutely unique. Not before they had such a wealth of information at Forensic Oceanography to help reconstruct an incident. …

When Charles hangs up the phone, he knows: they are another step closer to their smoking gun. After weeks of trying, he finally got the Libyan Coast Guard Sergeant back on the line. He spoke to him earlier, just after the incident. But now Sergeant Masoud Abdel Samad has confirmed that they received the coordinates of the rubber boat from Rome on 6 November. In other words: without the Italians, the Libyans would never have been there.

It is one of the many pieces of evidence that Charles Heller and his colleague Lorenzo Pezzani have received.

Another favourite: a photo they found in the Reuters press agency archive, taken on May 15, 2017.

Right in the middle is the Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti,

Mr Minniti was minister in the previous Italian ´center left´ government. Not in the present right wing government.

surrounded by a myriad of cameras. Behind him lies a new, light gray boat. The number 648 is clearly legible on the bow.

Charles knows that number. He watched the Sea-Watch videos for hours: it is the same boat that the Libyan coast guard used on November 6, 2017. The same boat that capsized the “balloon” rubber boat of Patrick and Samuel.

In addition, internal EU reports show that eight of the thirteen Libyan crew members on boat 648 have been trained by the EU.

A whole team of legal experts is now involved in the case. It looks like they’re getting the evidence against Italy. …

Contact with the men who are still in Libya was emotionally the hardest – perhaps too heavy. The stories about torture, slave trade, electrocution. The tangible fear on the phone. …

At sea, migrants in need are increasingly left to their own devices. At the beginning of this year, the Sea-Watch 3 was the only European lifeboat to pick up drowning people. She traveled around Europe’s coasts for several weeks before being allowed to drop rescued migrants into a European port.

In February the boat was chained in Sicily by order of the Dutch government.

And in March, the EU also stopped its anti-smuggling operations in the Mediterranean.

‘Europe [the European Union] wanted to demoralise us, to keep us away, to make sure we wouldn’t save any more migrants’. Ben Cowles speaks to FABIAN HEINZ, volunteer activist aboard the migrant rescue boat Europe turned its back on.

European Union Internet censorship, video


This 5 April 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

EU Clamps Down on Freedom of Speech in name of Copyright Protection

Julia Reda of the Pirate Party warns that the law does not protect creators, but large interest groups. Internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter will install filters and ban access to material individuals upload who do not buy the rights for everything they use.

More European Union, Australian government internet censorship


This 20 December 2018 video says about itself:

Article 13 – Is this how Europe will censor the net?

With Article 13, the European Union are about to make massive changes to a fundamental part of society (the internet) without clearly comprehending what they’re doing and this is incredibly frightening. This is like a bad first draft of a bad proposal. This is not just “this is a bad bill that went through a comprehensive process and I disagree with it.” This is an utter mess. It keeps shifting, it has vague and contradictory definitions, it tells companies to wave magic wands, and tells companies not to let the very thing the law compels actually happen. This is not regulating. This is why the public hates regulators.

By Justus Leicht and Johannes Stern in Germany:

European Union intensifies internet censorship

27 March 2019

Two months before the European elections, the European Parliament has voted to massively escalate internet censorship. Yesterday, the majority of MEPs voted in favour of a directive which, under the guise of copyright reforms, would enforce the use of so-called upload filters in social media, thus further restricting the internet.

According to Article 17 (formerly Article 13) of the Directive, internet platforms must now ensure that works protected by copyright are not uploaded without permission. This could only be enforced through upload filters, which automatically filter and censor content. The consequences are clear: internet giants such as YouTube and Facebook, which cooperate closely with the secret services and governments and already censor left-wing and progressive content on a massive scale, are being urged to delete articles, videos or other postings even before they are uploaded.

So far, platforms such as YouTube and Facebook have had to delete copyrighted works from their sites as soon as they receive a complaint. According to Article 17 of the new directive, operators must ensure that copyrighted works are not uploaded without permission. Alternatively, they must seek licences for the material uploaded by third parties and, in principle, develop mechanisms to prevent works from being made available in the first place where the rights holders have proven their claims.

In practice, given the amount, variety and speed with which new content is uploaded, this could only be achieved by automatically scanning and filtering all content in advance. Anyone who inserts images, excerpts from texts, videos or music to their own content, or modifies such content to create new content from it, can fall victim to the upload filters just as much as someone actually violating copyright law. In addition, upload filters can be politically manipulated so that, for example, texts or videos that are directed against austerity, militarism and war, report on labor disputes and strikes or contain terms such as socialism or “Marxism” are censored.

None of this is the result of an oversight, but is the real purpose of the “reform”.

The European governments and giant tech companies fear growing social opposition and are already censoring left-wing and progressive content on a massive scale. Facebook regularly deletes accounts that oppose war and police violence. In Germany, tens of thousands of posts have been deleted since the so-called Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) came into force. Google, in consultation with German government circles, has modified its search algorithms in order to suppress left-wing and progressive websites—including, above all, the World Socialist Web Site.

Faced with the “Yellow Vest” protests in France, the mass protests in Algeria and the growth of class struggle internationally, the ruling class is feverishly seeking ways to suppress all independent opposition. Already last autumn, the EU agreed to intensify internet censorship and threatened opposition parties with sanctions and punishments. This most recent authoritarian measure has been pushed through in direct opposition to the expressed will of the population.

On the weekend before the vote, more than 100,000 across Europe took to the streets against the new directive and the infamous upload filters. More than 40,000 people demonstrated in Munich on Saturday and more than 10,000 in Berlin. Further protests took place in Malmö, Helsinki, Amsterdam, Bucharest, Krakow, Lisbon and Thessaloniki. An online petition on change.org, “Stop the censorship machine—Save the internet”, was signed by more than 5.1 million people. Last Thursday, the German Wikipedia site went offline for a day in protest.

Immediately after the vote on Tuesday evening, spontaneous demonstrations with several hundred participants each took place in Cologne, Karlsruhe, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dresden and Leipzig. Further protests are planned for the next few days. The directive must be approved by the European Council before it can officially enter into force. According to media reports, this will take place in a vote on 9 April.

The MEPs who voted against the reform—including the majority of SPD, Linkspartei and Green MEPs from Germany—fear above all the growing radicalisation among students and young workers. Julia Reda, a member of the Green/European Free Alliance (EFA) parliamentary group, warned that the directive would “rob an entire generation of confidence that politics will represent the interests of the population.”

In fact, the vote showed that all the establishment parties support censorship and the construction of a European police state. Representatives of all factions—from the … Liberals (ALDE), Social Democrats (S&D) and Conservatives (EPP and ECR) to the extreme right (ENF and EFDD)—voted in favour of the new censorship law.

In implementing their reactionary plans, EU politicians are resorting to bald-faced lies. A few days before the vote, conservative European politician Daniel Caspary (CDU) denounced the anti-censorship protests in the Bild newspaper as “bought demonstrators” who would “endanger democracy”. EU Justice Commissioner Věra told Netzpolitik that upload filters and short deletion periods for online platforms could have prevented the right-wing terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand and the radicalisation of the perpetrator.

Dr Ms Jourová: the self-styled fascist mass murderer of Christchurch was not ‘radicalized’ by lack of censorship; but by face to face metings with Australian extreme right people; British extreme right people; French extreme right followers of Marine Le Pen; Austrian extreme rightists; and extreme right fellow members of his Christchurch gun club. And by hate speech by politicians like the most powerful man of the world, Donald Trump, ‘leader of the free world’. And by the never ending wars, with Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as poisonous byproducts, promoted by the corporate media.

She wanted “100 percent certainty” that “terrorist content… would not remain on the net.”

Such statements turn reality upside down. It is not the internet and demonstrators who are responsible for attacks on democratic rights or the radicalisation of right-wing terrorists like Brenton Tarrant, but EU politicians like Jourová herself. She is a member of the Czech governing party ANO 2011, which advocates a restrictive immigration policy and denounces Muslim refugees as potential terrorists. How openly and shamelessly leading European politicians are tying in with Nazi traditions was demonstrated by a statement made by the head of the conservative EPP parliamentary group, Manfred Weber (CSU), at the beginning of 2018. “The central European issue” was “the final solution to the refugee question”, he declared.

One year later, European governments openly consider fascistic methods to implement their reactionary policies. Ahead of protests by the “Yellow Vests” last weekend, the Paris military governor announced that the soldiers of an elite unit were ready to open fire on demonstrators with live ammunition if necessary.

Workers and youth must draw the necessary conclusions. The struggle against internet censorship—as well as the struggle against social inequality, fascism and war—requires a political struggle: that is, the mobilization of the international working class on the basis of a socialist program.

This December 2017 video says about itself:

20 Video Games That Are Banned or Censored in Australia

From start to finish, Australian games are suffering from heavy conservative censorship in the name of protecting everyone, even adults. This doesn’t make sense at all. Nanny state and conservative values has been running rampant in Australian society.

By Oscar Grenfell in Australia:

Australian government exploits fascist atrocity in New Zealand to push online censorship

27 March 2019

The Liberal-National Coalition government … is cynically using the March 15 fascist massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand to escalate long-standing moves to censor social media and suppress political discussion.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison summoned the Australian representatives of major social media companies, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, to a meeting in Brisbane, where he outlined a series of draconian measures aimed at forcing them to rapidly remove content.

Morrison flagged legislation that would compel the platforms to delete whatever the government deems to be “abhorrent violent material”. It would be a criminal offence for the companies to fail to comply with a government directive, punishable by massive fines. Financial penalties would increase, based on the length of time that the material was publicly viewable.

In an unprecedented move, the government has also stated that the legislation, which is still being drafted, will contain provisions for the criminal prosecution and potential jailing of social media executives and office holders who do not obey its dictates.

Following the meeting, Attorney-General Christian Porter declared that the response of the social media representatives had been “thoroughly underwhelming”. “There was unfortunately nothing in that room that would discourage the government from looking at a legislative solution to try to ensure that much, much quicker action is taken”, Porter stated.

All of the official parties and the corporate press have presented the proposed measures as an attempt to stop “hate speech” and prevent the public being exposed to “offensive” and “violent” material. They have cited the dissemination on social media platforms and websites of the Livestream video of the shooting produced by the fascist terrorist Brenton Tarrant.

These claims are a lie. They are aimed at covering up the responsibility of the political establishment and all of the major parties for the Christchurch attack and utilising the massacre to crack down on the democratic rights of ordinary people.

Tarrant’s attack was not the product of free speech or the internet. The Australian-born fascist was a highly conscious political operative with links to extreme right-wing networks in Australia and across Europe. His political outlook, based on murderous hostility to immigrants and an intense hatred of socialism, mirrors the nationalism and jingoism that has been promoted by Australian governments and all of the official parties for decades.

For the past 30 years, … governments have transformed Australia into a world model for the persecution of refugees fleeing imperialist war and oppression. They have vilified asylum-seekers, while detaining them indefinitely in concentration camps in the Pacific.

The major parties and the press have demonised Muslims since 2001, as part of the bogus “war on terror”, aimed at legitimising predatory US-led military interventions and erecting the foundations of a police state. They have stoked nationalism and anti-Chinese xenophobia to divide and disorient the working class amid a deepening social crisis produced by their pro-business policies, and to legitimise Australia’s integration into US preparations for war with China.

Morrison himself was installed as prime minister in a political coup within the Liberal Party last August, spearheaded by far-right forces. He and his colleagues have sought to transform the Liberal Party into an alt-right-style movement, modelled on Trump and based on extreme nationalism, xenophobia …

In reality, the calls for a crackdown on social media are directed against the mass opposition of workers, students and young people to the ruling elite’s agenda of war, austerity and authoritarianism.

Since 2017, the major social media companies, working in collaboration with the US intelligence agencies, have introduced a series of algorithms to dramatically reduce traffic to socialist, progressive and anti-war websites. Facebook and Twitter have deleted hundreds of pages and accounts exposing US wars and military intrigues, and the domination of official politics by the banks and corporations.

Morrison has made clear that his government’s measures are of a piece with these international efforts to suppress freedom of speech online. In the immediate wake of the Christchurch attack, he floated the possibility of a ban on all social media livestreaming.

This would prevent ordinary people from broadcasting significant social and political events and airing their views to a live audience online. Livestreaming has been used in the US, Australia and internationally to document police violence and state attacks on protests and to broadcast political demonstrations to a global audience.

Even if the government legislation does not ban live-streaming, statements by senior Coalition ministers have signalled that it will be used to crack down on political opposition. It is entirely possible, for instance, that footage of police attacking ordinary people or prison guards brutalising detainees could be deemed “abhorrent violent material” and proscribed.

Moreover, the threat of financial and legal penalties is clearly intended to pressure the social media companies, which are already implementing online censorship, to carry out the broadest removal of content, including to protect their own lucrative operations.

Already, in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch attack, major Australian internet service providers blocked access to websites which had hosted Tarrant’s video, even if they had subsequently removed it. …

These measures will inevitably be followed by attempts to suppress left-wing and progressive pages and opposition from the working class. Morrison, and Peter Dutton, the minister for home affairs, set the stage for this, by declaring last week that it was necessary to oppose “extremism” of the “left” and the “right”.

A federal Senate hearing on social media in November last year underscored the real target of online censorship.

Journalists from corporate media outlets, including Chris Zappone, the online foreign editor for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, warned that social media threatened “social cohesion” and was fuelling “growing distrust between the population—the citizens—and the leaders of that country.”

Dr Michael Jensen, of the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, a government-funded think tank, said that online discussion would likely be used to weaken “the Five Eyes alliance”—the international surveillance network led by the United States, which monitors the communications of millions of ordinary people and is integral to the preparations for war. He warned of online support for Julian Assange, who is being persecuted for his role in WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, mass spying and illegal diplomatic intrigues.

The drive by the entire political establishment, in Australia and internationally, to social media censorship and other authoritarian measures, underscores the importance of the International Coalition of Socialist, Antiwar and Progressive Websites, initiated by the World Socialist Web Site in 2017 to fight back against these attacks on freedom of speech and democratic rights.

Australian government sets global precedent with online censorship bill: here.

‘European Union condemning refugees to death’


This 15 November 2018 video says about itself:

🇮🇹 🇱🇾 Rescue at Sea: Migrants in the Mediterranean | People and Power

As long as there is war, poverty and insecurity in Africa and the Middle East, migrants and refugees will try and seek a better life in Europe.

For many years now, one of the principle transit routes has been the dangerous sea crossing over the Mediterranean between Libya and Italy. Images of anxious people crammed into small and manifestly unsafe boats … have become sadly familiar around the world, as have the stories of sinkings and drownings that tragically are regularly attendant on these journeys. As a result, and against a background of hardening anti-migrant sentiment in Europe, the problem of how to best respond to and control this phenomenon – and reduce the number of fatalities – has become ever more hotly debated.

For the last five years, EU navies have maintained a presence in the area to discourage people from making the journey. And since 2017, the Libyan coastguard, with the active support of the Italian government, has also become more active, mounting aggressive patrols off its long coastline. … their methods, focused mainly on deterrence, policing and security are increasingly at odds with those of other groups operating in the area since 2014 – NGOs running maritime search and rescue (SAR) missions to aid migrants in peril.

In August 2017, Italy asked all NGOs working in the area to sign a code of conduct, which in effect put strict legal and logistical constraints on their ability to operate. As a result, by mid-2018, only four NGOs were left pursuing SAR missions in the Mediterranean and there had been a number of highly charged stand-offs with the authorities.

In March for example, after a tense altercation between Libyan coastguards and a vessel from Proactiva Open Arms involving 218 migrants and refugees, the NGO’s ship was impounded in a Sicilian port for a month, with the crew held under investigation by the Italian authorities for allegedly “conspiring to facilitate illegal immigration”.

Then in June 2018, Italy refused to let the Aquarius – a ship run by SOS Mediterranee and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) – disembark 600 rescued migrants in Italian ports. When Malta also declined to accept them it became a Europe-wide dispute. Eventually, the migrants were off-loaded in Spain, but this and other incidents had a chilling effect on NGOs and for a time left the Libyan coastguard as almost the only rescue option in Central Mediterranean waters.

Much of the opposition to the NGOs’ activities seems to stem from a belief that their presence encourages migrants to embark on journeys they would otherwise avoid, or even, in the words of Italy’s controversial new Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, that they act as a “taxi service”.

The NGOs reject this claim entirely, but it highlights the fundamental differences between humanitarian groups seeking to save lives on the open seas and those focused on trying to dissuade people from making the treacherous crossing in the first place.

It also raises serious questions about the way that long-standing international maritime norms on nautical rescue are allegedly being ignored – with sometimes fatal consequences. What is clear is that when no-one is available to help those in peril, lives will be lost.

In November 2018, the UNHCR said that more than 2,000 refugees and migrants have died on the Mediterranean route this year and that the number of drownings has escalated sharply. In September alone, the refugee agency said one of every eight people making the dangerous journey towards Italy had been killed.

This, it said, was due in part to the “legal and logistical restrictions that have been placed on a number of NGOs wishing to conduct search and rescue (SAR) operations.” … it added that any vessel with the capability should be allowed to come to the aid of those in need. Moreover, anyone rescued in international waters should not be taken back to Libya where conditions are not safe. With access to both sides, we sent filmmaker Paula Palacios to investigate the background to this complex debate and what may happen next.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

Stopping rescuing boat migrants is “very disturbing news”, says Sea-Watch

Sea-Watch rescue organization is concerned about the fate of boat migrants who will soon make the crossing from Libya to Europe. “The chance of death increases for them”, says spokesperson Jelle Goezinnen.

It was announced today that the European Union will no longer pick up migrants from the Mediterranean from Monday on. The two ships that are still part of Operation Sophia are going back to the port. A few helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft will remain available to search for smugglers from the air.

The only question is who the crew should then notify if a migrant boat in trouble is spotted. There is nothing about this in the new mission agreements. “They can’t call anyone, so people are going to drown. Something else is not possible”, Goezinnen expects.

“Libya does not have capacity”

He strongly rejects the suggestion that the Libyan coast guard can help. “I always call it the ‘so-called’ coast guard.

It is more like a corrupt paramilitary gang, extorting, torturing and killing refugees and selling them into slavery.

In a country like Libya, where there is no central authority, you can’t speak of a real coast guard. They also have no capacity at all.” In addition, the circumstances under which migrants are jailed in Libya are terrible.

Private organizations such as Sea-Watch also have too few options to save more migrants, Goezinnen admits. “We will do what we can, but this is really an issue for the European Union.”

According to UN refugee organization UNHCR, more than 2,200 people drowned in the Mediterranean last year. Goezinnen: “That is 2,200 too many. Quite the contrary, much more rescue capacity must come from the EU.”

An additional problem is that there are hardly any aid organizations active on the Libyan coast. Currently it is only one: the Sea-Eye ship Alan Kurdi

called after the Syrian refugee little boy drowned near the Turkish coast

has been in the area since yesterday. There, the rescue workers look for the 41 people on a rubber boat from whom nothing has been heard for three days.

Sea-Watch would also like to leave for the area again, but according to Goezinnen the Dutch government does not allow that. He says that the Sea-Watch 3, which sails under the Dutch flag, cannot sail due to new rules announced by Minister Van Nieuwenhuizen. …

Sea-Watch would also like to leave for the area again, but according to Goezinnen this is not allowed by the Dutch government. He says that the Sea-Watch 3, which sails under the Dutch flag, cannot sail due to new rules announced by Minister Van Nieuwenhuizen.

Merchant ships are left for possible rescue at sea. According to international maritime law, captains are obliged to save people in need or people who are drowning. But there is not that much shipping traffic off the Libyan coast, trackers show on the internet. Also, ships regularly pass by migrants deliberately, Médecins Sans Frontières said last year, because they are not sure that they can land the people in Europe.

Soldiers in military fatigues with machine guns, balaclavas and bulletproof vests stride across the deck of the tanker El Hiblu 1. They confront frightened, unarmed migrants, including women and children, whose only possessions are what they can carry. This description of the tanker arriving at port in the Maltese capital La Valletta paints in graphic detail the inhumanity of the merciless European migration policy, which uses violence against refugees and makes their lives hell: here.