Comments by "Kenneth Hammond" (@kennethhammond6683) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

Russia did not in-fact invade any Ukrainian territory, they annexed territory after a referendum and request to do so by its rightful inhabitants.
16
gtubyyy Are the inane comments of a village idiot all you have to offer?
5
Zionists just cannot own up to the fact that they collaborated with the Nazi regime to transfer Jews to Palestine.
5
gtubyyy Irrelevant twaddle is not an indication of intelligence.
2
Article 26 of the JCPOA reserves the right for Iran to "cease performing its commitments" should other parties of the agreement re-introduce sanctions. The US doesn't have a leg to stand on, it along with the other signatory's violated the agreement when the US reintroduced unilateral sanctions.
2
Brighton So long as the US and its jihadi proxy forces occupy parts of Syria and maintain policies that prevent rebuilding and peace to emerge the conflict is not over, as such the refugees that fled Syria maintain their refugee status.Continuing US sanctions against Syria that affects rebuilding, food production and purchase of vaccines endanger the lives and wellbeing of the Syrian civilian population.furthermore Israel and the US continue with direct military actions to support the jihadi insurgency in Syria, that allows ISIS to regroup and to continue its campaign of terror against the Syrian people.
2
Refugee rights are quite specific under Human rights and refugee law Human rights are the rights that a person is guaranteed by way of birth. The following are universal human rights that are most relevant to refugees: the right to freedom from torture or degrading treatment the right to freedom of opinion and expression the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion the right to life, liberty, and security freedom from discrimination right to asylum. Refugee law and international human rights law are closely connected in content but differ in their function. The main difference of their function is the way in which international refugee law considers state sovereignty while international human rights law do not. One of the main aspects of international refugee law is non-refoulement, which is the basic idea that a country cannot send back a person to their country of origin if they will face endangerment upon return. In this case, a certain level of sovereignty is taken away from a country. This women has clearly been traumatised by her experiences, both in Syria and now in her country of asylum where clearly the racist political position and motivations of hatred and discrimination that the Danish government takes, violates the rights of the refugee is patently obvious.
2
gtubyyy The behaviours of John Paul Jones during the reign of Catherine the Great,1762 – 1796 is hardly relevant to the expressed wishes in referendum of the legitimate population in the 21st century, shit for brains.
1
Refugees from war torn countries are not required to return to their homes until the conflict has ended, however the US sanctions have increased with the result that the Syrian civilian population face starvation and disease as a result, if they are forced to return.
1
Brighton Refugee rights and invasion are two entirely different concepts, i Guess some people are way to dim-witted to understand the difference.
1
Brighton Thank you for proving my point, still its to be expected, the Danes refused sanctuary for Jewish refugees in the late 1930's many of whom as a result ended up in German extermination camps, its has something to do with their nazi past I suspect. Since the 1990s, closed Danish archives have been forced open by a new generation of historians, revealing previously concealed aspects of World War II Denmark. It emerges that from 1935 Denmark rejected Jewish refugees at its borders, and that it expelled Jewish refugees to Germany in 1940-1943 most of whom were eventually exterminated.
1
Brighton Now you want others to do your research for you , whether you believe something exists or not is of no great consequence, sorry its not my roll to fill in your blank spaces simply because you choose to deny historical events that is yours if you wish to stay abreast of the discussion, then nothing is that hard to find just google it as it has been written, suffice to say on my part it would appear that todays Danish authorities are really not that much different from their anti-semitic forebears who sent refugees to their death.
1
Brighton Given your obvious denialism, I am sure you will equally choose to deny that during the 1930s, Denmark's refugee policy and treatment of Jewish refugees were similar to those of other West European countries. Denmark's borders were gradually closed. Its policy toward the Jewish refugee problem was synchronised at every turn with other European states, and for the most part Denmark closed it door to Jewish refugees. Jews in Denmark were never given refugee status according to international treaties. For Jews on the run from Nazi Germany, Denmark was merely a transit station, and those who made it there awaited possibilities to get to more friendly countries. While in Denmark, they had neither rights as refugees nor fundamental civil rights and means of making a living, sounds awfully familiar with the current situation that Muslim refugees find themselves in, don't you agree?
1
Brighton If you are simply to cowardly to accept that Denmarks position towards Muslim refugees in the present day is no different than Denmarks position towards Jews in WW2, and deny the recorded history then so be it, I have nothing more to share with you because the official record matters not to people like you when it does not conform to your own bias.
1
You don't seem to understand the difference between migrant and refugee, a migrant is someone who is seeking citizenship, a refugee simply seeks shelter until it is safe to return to their home country, the migrant upon being granted citizenship is expected to integrate into society and will be granted full rights as a citizen of the host country, the refugee is expected to abide with the laws and regulations of their host country during their time in asylum, they because citizenship is not their goal are not required to integrate other than being obedient to the laws of the host nation. Refugees who are defined by law as opposed to simple migrants that has no legal definition are essentially temporarily seeking shelter as guests of the state.
1
@evalinacesarcassule5097 Don't talk rubbish you just expose your ignorance for all to see, Refugees are protected by refugee law, immigrants travel to their country of choice by an entirely different route. Refugees are not migrants they are specially protected under the legal definitions provided by the international refugee laws.https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/3/56e95c676/refugees-migrants-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html
1
Refugees are protected under Refugee law, the host country being a signatory to these laws loses a certain degree of sovereignty in being subject to Refugee law.https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/3/56e95c676/refugees-migrants-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html
1
@jordyjordy133 No, a refugee dose not have to be anything other than law abiding, refugees are in their host country under refugee law, try reading up about the laws that govern both the Refugee and Host nations rights, responsibilities and obligations. I have posted the pertinent laws elsewhere in this thread. The refugee is not there to make the citizens of the host nation feel good about themselves during their stay in the country.
1
Denmark is a signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the status of Refugees, as such is obligated to provide asylum that meet International Human and refugee rights laws. https://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf
1
@pamelawing626 The Danes have a few skeletons in the closet when it comes to the way they have treated refugees in the past specifically Jewish refugees that were turned away at the borders during WW2. Very sad outcome indeed. Little wonder given their present political ideologies they are acting much the same to muslim refugees, despite the fact that Denmark is a signatory to the international refugee conventions.
1