Jump to content

Damn the Rules, Rocna Inventor doing the NW Passage


Recommended Posts

Meaning of Passage is defined under Article 18 of the UNCLOS III.

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

 

In the current situation this bit (in Orange) might come into effect though;

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was adopted in 1982 [1] , it is also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty [2] . Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, 1958 (UNCLOS I) which was adopted in 1958 and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), since these two convention were believed to be inadequate. The term Innocent Passage is defined under international law referring to a ship or aircraft’s right to enter and pass through another’s territory so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the other state. Under Article 19 of the UNCLOS III it is defined “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.” Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. The right of innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial waters of a coastal state is one of the oldest and most universally recognized rules of public international law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Island Time said:

In the current situation this bit (in Orange) might come into effect though;

None of it applies because the Canadian position is that the NW Passage are Canadian Internal Waterways and therefore are not subject to Article 18 at all. 

For them to deny Right of Passage under that clause they'd first have to accept that the nw passage was not an internal waterway.  And that isn't going to happen... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kevin McCready said:

Wheels promoted the notion in his post and I hope it was just an error in understanding on his behalf and not a part of his belief system. These are important matters and it's essential that we don't make such fundamental errors in discussing them and in treating people humanely and treating them in accordance with our legal obligations.

My comment was only in support of KM's understanding of how it all took place.
While I am all for refugees coming here, I do think there needs to be a certain process that needs to be adhered to. I mean by this, we will take in x number if refugees for the year. This guy managed to jump the cue so to speak. That means that some other person that was more toward the front of the que has now possibly missed out. If it did work out that way, I don't think that is exactly fair.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheels, there is no refugee queue. That is precisely the nasty meme that the RW is spreading. Please stop spreading it. If a person seeking refugee status arrives on our shores they are entitled to have their claims heard no matter how they arrived. There is no queue whatsoever that we can say to them 'go back to where you came from and wait your turn in the queue'. BTW, last time I looked at the figures, most illegal migrants to NZ and Australia were from the UK and USA.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kevin McCready said:

Wheels, there is no refugee queue. That is precisely the nasty meme that the RW is spreading. Please stop spreading it. If a person seeking refugee status arrives on our shores they are entitled to have their claims heard no matter how they arrived. There is no queue whatsoever that we can say to them 'go back to where you came from and wait your turn in the queue'. BTW, last time I looked at the figures, most illegal migrants to NZ and Australia were from the UK and USA.

This is the last comment I am going to make on this as many are getting testy about it not be relevant to the topic.

But you are wrong. In regards to the discussed individual, he was/is part of the number of refugees we are taking in from that Oz Island group. We are taking a certain number each year(1500 was it?). So you could call that a Cue of sorts. And they were supposed to be vetted to ensure a possible terrorist was not using the situation to sneak through. It has nothing to do with Migrants, illegal or otherwise. These people have refugee status without being on our shores by the way. Oz placed them in camps on the Island and the US was supposed to take them till Trump cried unfair and pulled the plug on that. So NZ said we'll step up to the plate and increase our intake number.
This particular individual managed the cue because thye Greens Lawyer Woman got involved and they hatched the plan of getting him here for the Book thingy.
So you get your facts straight.

One thing I cannot claim as correct is that there was a rumor that things may have been a little more "personal" between them and she used her position to get certain things actioned. But that was a rumor. Although one has to question why all the effort to get him here if he was just one of the many refugees.

And apart from the rumor, I am looking at the facts..... well as accurately as you can get them from the Gvt and reputable Media. Not some Meme or whatever, not from some biased Left/Right groups.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Wheels.

Refugees can come into the country in a number of ways. The UN refugee resettlement program is one, direct application from outside a country is another, application for asylum once landed in a country is another.  There is no queue.  Please repeat this to yourself - there is no queue.

The people on Manus Island have not been transferred to NZ as a group.  In fact, the Aus govt has specifically declined to allow that.  This particular individual was part of a deal between Aus and US for a refugee swap, but that had not been finalised as you note.

He was not in NZ because of his refugee status per se - he was here as a writer with an international reputation.  He was invited by that group.  His invitation may have been via a lawyer - its not uncommon for them to act as an intermediary or advocate since refugees, almost by definition, lack capacity to act for themselves. 

He applied for and got a work visa for that purpose.  When the visa lapsed he applied as a refugee.  He went through the standard process presumably - no political party or other entity questioned it at the time - and was granted refugee status through that process.  The process is more than just ensuring they are not a terrorist btw, and given the well documented history for this individual, its unlikely that this was ever a concern.

So, there is no queue, but there is a quota.  Its not first-come-first served.  Each application is taken on its own merits.  He applied, the application was considered against the relevant criteria, he was accepted.

Nothing to see here, move along.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, just one more post, then one more reply, then one other reply. Oh, maybe a counter reply.

Wheels, have you removed your self imposed ban from Smalltalk yet?

Discussion of refugees etc, lets see, Technical talk, no. Cup talk? no, short talk? no, hmmm, cruise talk, nope. I can't work out where some back and for 'I'm physically disgusted' b refugee banter should go either... fairly sure its not in a marine talk thread on the North West passage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

None of it applies because the Canadian position is that the NW Passage are Canadian Internal Waterways and therefore are not subject to Article 18 at all. 

Ahem, now about that OP . . . 

I guess that explains why the Canadians claim the right to exclude US boats from their waters, not just anchoring, but sailing over them. 

But don't get me wrong, the USAean gummint is worse. 

Our continent could be witnessing the unraveling of 200 year old Rush-Bagot Treaty 

Sad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wishing to aggravate the sin or virtues of the voyage. And I hope within the bounds of the original post that I made about sailing the northern extremes of Canada. I thought there might be an interest in the little town of Okak (sometimes spelt Okkak). Kiwi Roa will likely sail past Okak, found in the northern extremes of Labrador, perhaps even stop there as this is well south of the ‘finish line’ of the passage.
Scientists tell us Okak, an Inuit village, has been constantly settled for over 5,000 years. At the turn of last century Okak held the largest Inuit community in Labrador and was the site of a Moravian mission that had been established in 1776. Twice each year the supply/trade ship Harmony visited both to supply goods and take away Okak’s produce.

So why is Okak special? Well 4 November 1918 the Harmony visited the little town, where she remained for 4 days before continuing her supply mission up the coast. Within two weeks, 70 residents had died, by the end of December 204 people of the total population of 263 had perished. Not a single male Inuit survived. Many bodies were dismembered and mutilated by the settlement’s starving dogs.

Here’s a quote from the book Northern Lights by Desmond Holdridge: “And thus, on the Mission bark Harmony,” wrote Holdridge, “had come the pestilence generated on battlefields, three thousand miles away, of a war that had less to do with the destinies of the Eskimo, on the face of it, than Polynesian morals have to do with double-entry bookkeeping.”

Holdridge quoted at length one Caucasian survivor who described to him the aftermath:

Dear God, we couldn’t bury them; there weren’t half a dozen able-bodied men in the village to lend a hand. Men I’d known well. Girls. Old ladies that made good boots. And the men and the women, they lay there dying and saying it was the end of the world. They called that thing Spanish influenza, but to me it was that the door to Hell was left ajar for a while and the smoke and stink of it got out to kill people. The dogs got into the houses and ate the bodies; they killed some of the people who were not dead, but too weak to drive them off.


You’ve seen the mounds around the village; it was where the bodies were so many that we couldn’t take care of them when help came from Nain; we just smashed the houses down on top of them and covered the wreckage with sod. That’s all the grave most of them got. The ice came in for a while and some of the dead we just pushed under it and let them go to sea. And a couple of years later some of them came ashore again. The noses and ears and fingers had been eaten by the fish but otherwise they were all right; I could recognize every one.


I’ve included a link to a doco from 1985. Just a warning that the film is difficult to watch. https://youtu.be/Ts3hFJOLFuo

Today Okak is abandoned, so the town’s brass band won’t be there to greet Pete Smith if he happens to call in and look at the site. 
 

Harmony at Anchor in Okak 1905.jpg

Harmony Trade Route.jpg

Okak 1908.jpg

Okak 2017.jpg

Okak mission 1908.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...