Those international conventions don’t sound so great now, huh?

Caption: A UN representative shows off its latest “convention”.

Whenever countries like Australia persist in the unimaginably disgusting practise of actually trying to control their own borders, you can bet that there?ll be an idiots? chorus of ‘compassionate’ leftists and refugee-hugging activists and lawyers, heads all a-tilt, babbling about ‘obligations’ under ‘international conventions’.

In the eyes of these self-righteous twits, the right of nations to exercise their sovereign rights is always annulled by ‘conventions’ that none of their citizens were ever asked to vote on.

However the starry-eyed fans of these conventions are remarkably flexible when it suits them, as Newsie reports. Quote:

New Zealand women fleeing domestic violence in Australia are being forced back across the ditch under an international child abduction agreement.

The Hague Convention was created in 1980 to force the return of a child when one parent takes them from their country of residence.

Nearly 40 years on, lawyers say the convention is outdated, and being used to revictimise women who have fled abusive relationships. End of quote.

The Hague Convention was written with the implicit assumption that it was men who were abducting their children when their relationship with the mother turned sour. As it turns out, such conventions are quickly outdated and lead to unintended consequences.

Fancy that. Quote:

When Jane fled Australia with her son, she was breaking international law.

Now they have been ordered back to Australia, put on a collision course with the man who has abused her for years.

“It’s the ultimate control. It’s the ultimate,” Jane said.

“It’s having a judge rule that you have to go back to him. Imagine that feeling. I can’t fathom going back because it’s so unsafe.”

Jane’s case isn’t unique.

Her lawyer, Daniel Vincent, has dealt with five Hague Convention cases in the past year, four of which involved a New Zealand woman fleeing domestic violence in Australia. End of quote.

This is an awful situation. Yet, as we?re constantly hectored when it comes to country-shopping so-called ?asylum seekers?, international conventions are sacrosanct. Quote:

It’s cases like these that highlight issues with the Hague Convention, and is why Sudha Shetty at the University of California, Berkeley, has been studying the convention.

She said the convention can’t be changed, but a nation like New Zealand can decide how it interprets the law.

“You could make changes to your implementing legislation in New Zealand,” Ms Shetty said. End of quote.

Just as Australia did, with the Refugee Convention, boat-turnbacks, and offshore detention. But, apparently, that?s different.

But why can?t the convention be changed if it?s so obviously out of date and not working as intended?

Like the Hague Convention, other international laws, like the 1951 Refugee Convention, are often quickly superseded by events in a fast-changing world. The 1951 convention was written in the aftermath of WWII. To pretend that the global situation today is in any way similar is absurd. Yet boat-chasing lawyers and virtue-signalling activists act as if the conventions are written in stone and handed down from the mountain-top.

If it can be accepted that one convention is out-of-date and inappropriate, then the same must be true of others. They can?t have it both ways.