Plus, it looks like a relatively humble boat, compared to the numerous superyachs you see a few hours sailing away in Cannes / Nice / St Tropez for instance

edit: He should just buy 10 more boats and ignore the bureaucrats. People would probably give him money to do it. (I would)

amusing how no leader is ever refereed to as far left.

Mainstream news outlets almost never describe leaders as far left.

You brought up Brazil. Lets look at Brazil as framed by New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/world/americas/lula-elect...

"Brazilians voted out their far-right leader, Jair Bolsonaro, after a single term and replaced him with former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva."

I guess I was wrong about Brazil, it seems like Lula's politics can't really accurately be described as far-left based on his leadership during his first presidency.

Sometimes NYT and other mainstream news will say leader of far-left party, but very very rarely will they say the leader is far left. It seems they use "far right leader" more than 10x they use "far left leader"

Far right leader: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&query=%22far%20...

Far left leader:https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&query=%22far%20...

Not sure why you are concluding Lula's politics can't be accurately described as far-left, just because NYT won't print that. Not saying its correct or not but NYT isn't 'gospel'

(As yes I do realize the original article doesn't use specifically use "far-right leader" Meloni. The point is many reporters love to tag people they don't like as far right)

I wonder if this party would agree with 'far-right' as a descriptor? Some political movements here in the UK are (sadly) happy to be called far-right and trade on it.

> Some political movements here in the UK are (sadly) happy to be called far-right and trade on it.

Which is good, we should encourage honest labeling of political parties. The bad thing isn't that these parties are far-right or that they call themselves far-right, but that people vote for far-right parties (I would extend the same to far-left, in a European context). That problem won't go away by calling them something else though.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/24/italy-meloni-government...

   “Yes, neofascists were ‘criminalized’ because they were bombing trains,” said 
   David Broder. The new government, he added, “seems to be under the strange 
   impression that neofascism was ‘criminalized’ by others rather than ‘criminal’ 
   when its members planned terrorist attacks and coups.”

Pretending the right do criminal stuff but get offended for being called that is RETArDED

If you think Meloni is a criminal, go ahead and sue her or explain how

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Just trying to ascertain exactly your issue with the term.

The first part is sort of plausible. Having a bunch of cowboys running around can be a big headache for coordination, but the second part? Um, yeah, I guess live migrants do put more pressure on the reception centre than dead ones.

But if we want to be more charitable, the comment could also be about how Italy tries to find ways to rescue people and dump them on the African side of the Mediterranean instead of in Italy, while the Banksy ship doesn't care about that effort.

  brought in rules which ban NGO vessels from performing more than one rescue at sea at a time

1. If a commercial vessel (container ship etc) finds a migrant boat in need of rescue and then later finds another also in need of rescue, are they supposed to just leave them?

2. How come Italy can dictate what foreign vessels (Banksys ship is registered in German as per the article) do in international waters? How can they prosecute a captain of a vessel for something they did while in international water? (that isn't piracy, or something of that nature)

The answer is basically they can because they can.

The ship isn't picking people up and delivering them to Germany, they're picking people up and delivering them to Italy. When the ship is docked in Italy it is at the whim of the Italian authorities.

No they don't. What authority enforces that?

If not other country or international body has the willingness and capability to go to war with Italy in order to enforce its opinions, and if no country is willing to shun Italy over this or Italy is fine with the shunning, then Italy can have whatever laws it likes.

Yeah, because you're trying to convince me that 2+2=5.

> If you have read recent European Human Rights Court decisions, you can clearly see what kind of domestic laws is in violation of law. (Yes, I mean some domestic laws are in violation of laws)

And what's that court going to do to make Italy comply?

For instance: I can claim until I'm blue in the face that everyone has to comply with some "universal law" that I declare, and I can issue statements to that effect, but in reality that's totally meaningless because I lack the power to make others follow me. There are a lot of international bodies that makes similar claims, and similarly lack the power. Maybe those bodies persuaded you, but that doesn't matter to the unpersuaded.

International relations is literally anarchy. Sometimes there's cooperation that looks like law, and rhetoric that that claims the moral force of law, but the reality is anarchy -- which is why Putin was able to invade Ukraine and North Korea's government has remained in place for 70 years, doing things liberals find to be horrific and "illegal" the whole time.

To hell with the law. It is supposed to represent the will of the people and be enforced in the defence of our interests and expectations. Instead it is weaponised against us by our enemies.

Where is your humanity, your compassion?

My compassion has limits. There's no humanity in ethnomasochistic suicide to serve the interests of foreigners at the expense of your own family. That doesn't make you a good person, it makes you a traitor.

You say you are worried that your grandchildren will have no place to live among their "own kind". Being human not enough?

Frankly you sound like a racist.

It doesn't make you hip to pretend that millions of Africans and Asians pouring into our countries is wonderful for us. It makes you a suicidally naive moron.

Follow "Every Day" on Telegram if you want a daily baby step into the realities of blacks living near our own. It's horrific. And you support it with your unforgivably wilful ignorance.

For myself, I see myself primarily as a human, not a white human, or a male human, or an English human, although they all contribute to my identity. I just don't see those things as of primary importance, and are merely accidents.

That's why London and Birmingham are unrecognisable as English cities any more. That's why you'll be visited by police if you complain on social media that none of your neighbours speak English. That's why your grandchildren will be minorities in the land their fathers have been building, advancing and protecting for thousands of generations.

Until you came along. You probably don't even have any kids. Too smart for that!

But your enemies do. The ones telling you all about how shortsighted, expensive, mundane and selfish it would be to have kids, and that climate change is going to end the world anyway, and that if you absolutely must have kids you have a duty to miscegenate? Well they all have plenty of kids. So does the Muslim guy down the street. And the Indian family next door. Not you though.

I hope you snap out of it one day. The most important realisation you can have is that a lot of people hate you. I don't mean playground teasing hatred. I mean genocidal hatred. Slow, torturous, humiliating extinction hatred. And they have your politicians, bankers, and media by the balls.

Remember: They all hate you.

Imagine your ancestors looking down on you, having toiled for literal millennia to get us in the privileged position we're in, only for you to spit in their faces calling it an "accident". Imagine their disgust as you throw it all away to serve the interests of foreigners who hate us.

Or, you know, have some humanity and let them come ashore anyway.

But humanity needs to be backed up by resources to provide to the new arrivals: housing, energy, schooling, medical care, jobs, etc. Those aren't in excess supply right now. Many EU countries have seen a Real GDP per capita stagnation since 2008. Since covid and the war, most Europeans have taken a ral hit on their wallets.

If you're stretched thin with not enough to go around for the locals, they might not accept your humanitarian efort towards outsiders as being in their best interest, and vote for some rightwing muppet with a funny moustache in your place.

IIRC they can't have a say on what they do in international waters. They can however have a say on a German ship bringing migrants into an Italian port. It's up to the Italian authorities to accept or deny the German vessel at that point.

Unless Banksy or the German Gov. provides a shuttle transport from Italy to Germany, then that's like me going around the neighborhood rescuing stray dogs and cats and dumping them on a neighbor's yard because he's closer to where I found them. It then becomes less "me rescuing them" and more "me making it someone else's problem".

NGOs are being rate limited but the coast guard is not. This is to prevent the NGOs to overload with comms and requests the coast guard, in the frequent cases in which they are already working on a rescue.

It's a little too easy rhetoric to point out that the current government is right-wing. This is a rule in place to prevent an unorderly and (even more) dangerous rescue.

> "The order was issued as a result of the findings made by IMRCC Rome (rescue coordinating authority) under Decree Law 1/2023, converted into Law 15/2023 and bearing 'urgent provisions on transit and stopover in territorial waters of non-governmental vessels engaged in rescue operations at sea.' The unit, specifically, after carrying out the first rescue operation in Libyan waters, contravened the imparted disposition to reach the port of Trapani, directing instead on 3 other units of migrants on which, moreover, under the coordination of IMRCC Rome, were already directing in rescue the means of the Italian Coast Guard."

> "The dispositions given to the NGO ship, given its small size, were also aimed at preventing it from taking on board such a number of people as to jeopardize both its own safety and that of the migrant boats to which it would provide rescue. The failure to comply with the provisions, moreover, slowed down the achievement of a port of disembarkation for the migrants rescued in the first intervention, initially identified in that of Trapani by the Ministry of the Interior, thus inducing the decision to redesign the arrival of the NGO, for reasons of safety and urgency, in the port of Lampedusa, already, moreover, solicited by the numerous arrivals of migrants in recent days."

> "To such behavior, which in itself already complicated the delicate work of coordinating relief," it goes on to read, "were added the continuous calls from the NGO air assets that overloaded the communication systems of the national relief coordination center, overlapping and duplicating the signals of the already present state air assets. Similarly, the incident cited by NGO Ocean Viking and referring to alleged Libyan coast guard gunfire that occurred in the SAR area falling under the responsibility of another national coordination center, was not being reported to the flag country as would be required by navigation safety regulations, but rather to the Italian coordination center on a continuous basis, again ending up overloading the IMRCC at particularly intensive times of ongoing relief efforts. Nevertheless, in 48 hours more than 3,300 people aboard 58 boats were rescued under the coordination of the Italian Coast Guard."

If you want to translate by yourself:

> “Il provvedimento è stato emesso a seguito degli accertamenti effettuati da IMRCC Roma (autorità coordinatrice dei soccorsi) in base al DL 1/2023, convertito nella legge 15/2023 e recante ‘disposizioni urgenti in materia di transito e sosta nelle acque territoriali delle navi non governative impegnate nelle operazioni di soccorso in mare’. L’unità, nello specifico, dopo aver effettuato il primo intervento di soccorso in acque libiche, contravveniva all’impartita disposizione di raggiungere il porto di Trapani, dirigendo invece su altre 3 unità di migranti sulle quali, peraltro, sotto il coordinamento di IMRCC Roma, stavano già dirigendo in soccorso i mezzi della Guardia Costiera italiana“.

> “Le disposizioni impartite alla nave Ong, valutate le sue piccole dimensioni, erano altresì tese a evitare che la stessa prendesse a bordo un numero di persone tale da pregiudicare sia la sua sicurezza che quella delle imbarcazioni di migranti a cui avrebbe prestato soccorso. La non osservanza delle disposizioni, inoltre, ha rallentato il raggiungimento di un porto di sbarco per i migranti salvati nel primo intervento, inizialmente individuato in quello di Trapani dal Ministero dell’Interno, inducendo così a ridisegnare la decisione in modo da far convergere l’arrivo della Ong, per motivi di sicurezza e di urgenza, nel porto di Lampedusa, già peraltro sollecitato dai numerosi arrivi di migranti di questi ultimi giorni“.

> “A tale comportamento che già di per sé complicava il delicato lavoro di coordinamento dei soccorsi – si legge ancora – si sommavano le continue chiamate dei mezzi aerei ONG che hanno sovraccaricato i sistemi di comunicazione del centro nazionale di coordinamento dei soccorsi, sovrapponendosi e duplicando le segnalazioni dei già presenti assetti aerei dello Stato. Allo stesso modo, l’episodio citato da ONG Ocean Viking e riferito ai presunti spari della guardia costiera libica avvenuto in area SAR ricadente nella responsabilità di un altro centro di coordinamento nazionale, non veniva riportato al Paese di bandiera come sarebbe previsto dalle norme sulla sicurezza della navigazione, bensì al centro di coordinamento italiano, in modo continuativo, finendo anche questo col sovraccaricare l’IMRCC in momenti particolarmente intensivi di soccorsi in atto. Ciononostante, in 48 ore sono state soccorse, sotto il coordinamento della Guardia Costiera Italiana, oltre 3300 persone a bordo di 58 imbarcazioni”.

So they pickup migrants from Libya and transfer them to Italy. They should be simply jailed.

I'd been noticing for a while reading Wikipedia's current events that seemingly every week there is at least one case of "boat carrying migrants sinks killing dozens of people". Glancing back, there were 29 reported drowned on the 26th, 5 the 23rd, 14 on the 9th, and 2 on the first. All of these in the Mediterranean. This is ugly.