Legal and moral responsibilities at sea

[GregOddity]

Problem is, if you pick up the wrong guys, you may be the one swimming for shore. Unless they were in the water, I wouldn't consider taking anyone aboard.

I somehow don't think you will find any politicians floating on a dingy. Those are the wrong kind. The rest are just scared, wet, hungry fellow human beings at risk in a highly dangerous environment and need RESCUING because those vessels are not meant to cross the channel. Those you can pick up. Of course, some people always find an excuse for not doing the right thing. Captain of the Costa Concordia had a full list as well.

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

The rest are just scared, wet, hungry fellow human beings at risk in a highly dangerous environment and need RESCUING because those vessels are not meant to cross the channel.

Really think so? How many 'refugees' have you seen while landing from the rescue boats? These are mostly well-fed, wearing Nike, Adidas and similar wear. They come from sub-Sahara, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Somalia, Egypt, Mali, etc., and have lived for a considerable time working in Libya before paying $2,000 per person to the traffickers for the trip to Europe. They know that the boats are going to be crowded and that they are not suitable for seafaring. (You mention the Channel. Is that 20 miles?; Malta is some 222 nautical miles from Tripoli).
BUT, they also know that they will be 'saved' because the NGO ships will be waiting for them and they know exactly where they will be found. Who is funding these 'rescue ships'? There are strong indications that it could well be the traffickers themselves. The registration of one of the ships was withdrawn by Gibraltar. Another ship is - so far - registered in the Netherlands but is run by a German NGO. Neither of these countries wants to recognise or 'own' these operations.
There is more to what the NGOs, through the media, want you to know, much more.

 

[GHA]

Really think so? How many 'refugees' have you seen while landing from the rescue boats? These are mostly well-fed, wearing Nike, Adidas and similar wear. .

The one's I've seen (2AM on the quayside Los Christianos, Tenerife) were not well fed, a few unconscious, probably wearing Nike etc fakes cos that's the cheapest clothes there are. Next to no hope of rescue down there. Men. women and children so desperate they were willing to risk their lives and life savings to get away from a life so awful it was worth the risk. So so very sad.

 

[duncan99210]

I think it’s worthwhile differentiating between encountering an inflatable in the channel which is making its way under power towards shore: I’d report that to the Coastguard and then stand off and watch. If it subsequently got into difficulties, I’d close and offer help.
If I came across a similar craft but it was in difficulties, I’d contact the Coastguard and ask them for instructions. But I’d be prepared to close and take the folks on board if it became obvious that difficulties had changed into real trouble.
If I came across people in the water I’d simply pick them up, notify the Coastguard and proceed to shore in the expectation of meeting the authorities there.
I’ve seen film of encounters between fishing vessels and dinghies where the folks aboard the dinghy refused to be “rescued” by a fishing boat, preferring to wait until either the Border Force or Lifeboat arrived on the scene, which tends to suggest that the game is to get to UK not necessarily to evade officialdom on arrival.

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

Men. women and children so desperate they were willing to risk their lives and life savings to get away from a life so awful it was worth the risk. So so very sad.

A genuine refugee, anxious "to get away from a life so awful it was worth the risk" would do it the legal way, would ask for asylum at the first safe country that he enters, does not destroy his official identity documents, which documents would prove his real country of origin and not somewhere else as he might claim.
There is a very small percentage who are genuine refugees seeking to flee war zones - and they are accepted after their story is vetted - but the vast majority are nothing more than economic migrants who think that the streets of Europe are 'paved with gold' but have heard that Malta has a substantial shortage of manpower - which is also true - but what they are not told by the traffickers is that they would need to be extremely highly qualified. So, those who have, somehow, convinced the interviewers who assessed them that they are 'bona fide' refugees still end up doing work that the Maltese do not want to touch and are often exploited. This extends to twenty or so immigrants sharing a small apartment so that can share the rent of €500 (minimum for a slum area) monthly rent between them.
My country has some 10% of the working population of foreign origin, mostly coming from places like Italy, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and, yes, even the UK. It is estimated that in the next few years we need to import another 40,000. It is relatively easy for someone from the EU but it is extremely difficult for someone who comes from outside the EU.
So, should we simply open our doors to all comers who are brought here in boats? Our Government fulfills its legal international obligations with respect to "persons in distress at sea" but will not have the wool pulled over its eyes by the so-called 'rescue ships' and their NGOs with their cock and bull sob stories. We have done more than our fair share and have had enough. IF the boats are picked up within our Search & Rescue area, the vessel that picks them should proceed to the nearest safe port or to the next port on the ship's itinerary. Turning up in our territorial waters against official instructions will see them stranded at sea with our ports closed to them. They will only be allowed to enter and disembark the rescued persons AFTER other countries in the EU agree on how many they will take as their share of the burden.
It appears that these NGOs are finally getting the message that we mean business.

(Note that Malta is the most densely populated country in the EU and one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with about 1,265 inhabitants per square kilometre (3,000 per square mile). This compares with about 32 per square kilometre (85 per square mile) for the United States.)

 

[shaunksb]

I don't know what happens in your part of the world but in the Central Mediterranean it happens all the time.
(Snip)
My priorities - regardless of whether legal, moral or rational - have always been (1) my boat, (2) my crew and (3) others
(Snip)
Sure you would....just tell us when you do it!

Well In our part of the world we remain humane.

Interesting that you put your boat before your crew.

I’m probably more likely to see things through than you...

______________________

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

Well In our part of the world we remain humane.

We prefer to be rational and pragmatic.

Interesting that you put your boat before your crew.

That is the accepted norm among rational people who know about distress at sea. It is useless to try to save the crew if they do not have a boat on which they can be saved. Just as useless trying to save passengers or other 'persons in distress at sea' if you don't have a boat and a crew that can handle it. Therefore (1) the boat (2) the crew (3) others, in that order.

So, you see, "I’m probably more likely to see things through than you..."

 

[Poignard]

You certainly have a point there.

The Aborigines probably felt then the same as you do now...

WilliamH fell right into that one!

 

[shaunksb]

That is the accepted norm among rational people who know about distress at sea. It is useless to try to save the crew if they do not have a boat on which they can be saved.

You should consider getting a liferaft...


________________________________

 

[GregOddity]

The thread started with the Moral and Legal question of what to do if we sight a vessel with migrants. To me as a Sailor there is only one consideration to be made. Is it in danger and does it need assistance? Everything else on the water is nothing but semantics. If it’s not a duck and it can’t float and needs rescue that is what I will do.

I was taught sailing in Portugal by very old-fashioned Sailors, where the worst enemy of the guy with a problem would throw his catch overboard to go to the rescue of a fellow sailor, which is what his worst enemy would become the moment he was in danger. The sea respects no one and kills anyone with the arrogance to presume it does. I was taught that the ONLY consideration is HUMAN life.
On the Sea there are no politics, no background checks, no faiths creeds or races. Animal or human in distress you rend assistance. Others will do the same for you. But I do tend to ask myself if all my fellow sailors would bother to come should I need. I nevertheless follow the same rules used by Sailors (with a capital S) from times immemorial. You race to the rescue and do your best to save human life.

In my book any man that does not do such is just in the same category as that Costa Concordia dude. Prosecuted under old Sea Traditions. As should all that stand off and when it sinks lose a couple because it will be too late to try to save 5 or 6 panicked, cold and wet people at the same time. To overturn a dingy is the easiest thing and by then it will be a disaster. Then the Legal question would be: Did you do everything you could to assist? The moral needs no mention.
I guess one argument could be “I was not sure if they were criminals and take over the boat “

 

[[163233]]

Now that I've recently become a migrant, this thread reads really strangely..

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

The thread started with the Moral and Legal question of what to do if we sight a vessel with migrants.

(snip)

I guess one argument could be “I was not sure if they were criminals and take over the boat “

No. The "argument" is 'what do you next?'

If you are willing and able to assume responsibility for them, take them home with you and care for them, all well and good... maybe...

What right do you have to dump them upon a country, upon its social services, upon a country that does not need them? Do you just take their word that they are really genuine refugees, 'Scouts honour, cross my heart and hope to die' or do you accept that the country has a right to vet their claim? You have a right to live in your country but you have no right to give that privilege to someone to who is not entitled to it; it is not yours to give.

Some are found to be genuine and these are given asylum. The vast majority of them are found to be just people who are not 'fleeing' from any wars but are simply after a better life, certainly better than what they have at home. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that desire IF they follow the legal avenues.... like normal, bone fide emigrants have done for decades. Unfortunately for them, they don't.

 

[GregOddity]

We prefer to be rational and pragmatic.



That is the accepted norm among rational people who know about distress at sea. It is useless to try to save the crew if they do not have a boat on which they can be saved. Just as useless trying to save passengers or other 'persons in distress at sea' if you don't have a boat and a crew that can handle it. Therefore (1) the boat (2) the crew (3) others, in that order.

So, you see, "I’m probably more likely to see things through than you..."

I think you need to read this. He faced certain death for the duration and at all times the vessel and crew was at risk. Getting out of harbour on that storm itself was nothing short of suicide. He took 32 men back to safety on a boat designed for not even half that number. He put BOAT, Crew and his life at risk during the duration from the moment he left harbour. And OTHERS were N1 on HIS list. But he was a Sailor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_C._Webber


Your list is wrong! And I can tell you that if you find yourself in distress if there is a small chance of getting you out, I will always take it. Sometimes, you are ALL there is as help. How we approach that is what defines us as men.

 

[BelleSerene]

Those of you talking about cable ties really need to think on!

Apart from the criminality of it, common sense would tell you that you cannot simply bring folk aboard and then grab them and try and restrain them with cable ties without being on the (well deserved) receiving end of resistance and violence. Especially, tired, cold frightened people, who may not even understand your language. Either bring them aboard properly and look after them, or leave them where they are, depending on your personal mix of judgement/bravery and humanity.

I don’t believe it would be criminal. S105 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives you quite enough power, and your belief that it was necessary to maintain good order in the event would be pretty unchallengeable. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/section/105

As for the practicalities, I agree with you. You need overwhelming force or threat of it to get one person to submit to restraint. (Certainly, that’s why you’d do it one by one if you had to.). And you need cable ties tougher than Belle Serene’s electrical stores hold, to keep him there. Don’t confuse cable ties with plasticuffs: http://www.securicare.com/double-loop-plasticuffs-120.html. You can get out of cable ties by twisting your arms sharply against each other; it’ll cut you but you can do it if you want.

I’m with what I think is the majority opinion here - if life is endangered, I help, period. The illegal migrants’ lives are not endangered while they are in their raft, but mine and my crew’s might well be if we swap boats, so they stay in their boat and I stand off to observe them for safety. I call the professionals - that’s the coastguard. Preferably the French one unless I’m decisively in UK waters. And if I engage in people-smuggling I deserve everything the law has waiting for me, plus a slapping for being morally confused.

 

[GregOddity]

No. The "argument" is 'what do you next?'

If you are willing and able to assume responsibility for them, take them home with you and care for them, all well and good... maybe...

What right do you have to dump them upon a country, upon its social services, upon a country that does not need them? Do you just take their word that they are really genuine refugees, 'Scouts honour, cross my heart and hope to die' or do you accept that the country has a right to vet their claim? You have a right to live in your country but you have no right to give that privilege to someone to who is not entitled to it; it is not yours to give.

Some are found to be genuine and these are given asylum. The vast majority of them are found to be just people who are not 'fleeing' from any wars but are simply after a better life, certainly better than what they have at home. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that desire IF they follow the legal avenues.... like normal, bone fide emigrants have done for decades. Unfortunately for them, they don't.

On the Sea, there is only water and people. I'm a Sailor not the Border Force. I'm a Sailor not the Social services. I'm a Sailor not a JUDGE! NO ONE has the RIGHT to decide based on Colour Creed or politics if a human Life should or not be saved. THAT is all that matters at Sea.

At sea I’m no one. Just one more Sailor. I have no opinions on immigration or Brexit or trump or even religion. I don’t assist based on any political consideration or opinion or even my view of the world or even if I like you.

My question is: are you in distress? and that is all I need to know. THAT is the Law of the Sea.

Do you think the Sea cares what your nationality is? Who you are? What tittles you may have? What you believe in?
The Sea will just kill you and swallow you whole and not care for any of your thoughts or who you may think you are. The Sea is indifferent to all that. Kings have sunk to the bottom as fast as the common man.

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

Getting out of harbour on that storm itself was nothing short of suicide. He took 32 men back to safety on a boat designed for not even half that number. He put BOAT, Crew and his life at risk during the duration from the moment he left harbour. And OTHERS were N1 on HIS list. But he was a Sailor.

Big deal! He was a Coast Guard, in whose line of work is normally also included search and rescue. (At least that is how it is with our Coast Guard in Malta).
He was not a master of a vessel that happened to come across a boat with people claiming to be 'persons in distress at sea'. He went to a vessel that had actually broken in two. Moreover, he had the legal assurance that the nearest safe port (as required by the International Law of the Sea) was his country and was willing and able to accept the people who were rescued.
Totally different scenario!

 

[William_H]

WilliamH fell right into that one!

Re Australian aborigines. I happen to believe that the"western" culture of which UK and Oz are very good examples is the only way forward fro any people on earth. Therefor I believe that 250 years ago the arrival of English migrants was eventually a benefit to the original inhabitants. (and inevitable) This western culture brings peace, clothing, food security medical advances and equality of gender. All cultures through out the world are wanting cars guns food and clothing but many are reluctant re freedom from religion and gender equality. That is the culture getting dominance in Oz I am afraid of. Anyway enough of a rant. Lets get back to boats ol'will

 

[GregOddity]

Big deal! He was a Coast Guard, in whose line of work is normally also included search and rescue. (At least that is how it is with our Coast Guard in Malta).
He was not a master of a vessel that happened to come across a boat with people claiming to be 'persons in distress at sea'. He went to a vessel that had actually broken in two. Moreover, he had the legal assurance that the nearest safe port (as required by the International Law of the Sea) was his country and was willing and able to accept the people who were rescued.
Totally different scenario!

It was actually a VERY BIG deal. He had no training for what he did not even orders. He did it out of Moral Duty.

The only legal assurance you need is a distress signal and a call to the Coast Guard of any country be that on the location or close to shore. Hoist a quarantine yellow flag and stand-off harbour until the proper authorities arrive. I would not disembark anyone save on a medical emergency without any form of control or Government authority to receive them. If I had no VHF radio, I would deploy a red flare and yellow flag and wait inside the harbour but not dock until instructed to do so.

Off course you can also be prosecuted under the same law for failing to assist.

They only become Illegal Immigrants or asylum seekers once that status has been given by some Authority of the country they land. At sea, in Distress? The law is clear!

People in distress at sea can only be saved by efforts undertaken by other people, be they State officials on board rescue vessels or masters and crews of private vessels. Solidarity towards fellow seafarers has therefore been transposed into legal norms and has constituted the basis of the duty to rescue. There is no doubt that the duty to rescue is one of the best-established principles of the international law of the sea, maritime law and international humanitarian law (IHL).

 

[westhinder]

Who is funding these 'rescue ships'? There are strong indications that it could well be the traffickers themselves.
.

Do you have solid proof of this?

Or alternative facts?

 

[Topcat47]

“Oh hear us when we cry to thee for those in peril, on the sea”:- says it all really. You have to do the best you can. I only hope I’ll step up to the line, if ever called.