The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Refugees will be an election issue > Comments

Refugees will be an election issue : Comments

By Graham Young, published 12/7/2010

A 'What the People Want' poll finds the refugee story encapsulates some of the themes that underlie the two sides of Australian political debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
I'm glad this isn't a "everyone who wants strong border control is a racist" piece.

For those who favour a liberal approach, what sort of numbers of "unconventional arrivals" are you prepared to contemplate accepting?

Let me set a benchmark.

It is estimated that around 500,000 people from Mexico slip into the US every year. The US has a population of approximately 300 million.

Scaling it in proportion to population this works out to accepting about 38,000 "unconventional arrivals" per annum in Australia. Are most posters here prepared to accept that number.

Note that boat arrivals are different to people who arrive by air and overstay their visa for two reasons:

--We have documentation on the latter group - we know who they are. Most unconventional arrivals have no papers.

--Most of the latter group are simply taking an extended holiday and intend to return to their home countries. This is not the case with boat arrivals.

In this, as in so many cases, unless you are prepared to talk numbers you are saying nothing.

I doubt those who are in favour of a more liberal approach to unconventional arrivals will be prepared to talk numbers other than to express the pious hope that not "too many" will arrive.

For the record:

I think Australia could easily accept an extra 10,000 or so refugees over and above the 13,750 that are already accepted. After that I think we start having problems.

The more important question, by far, is how many LEGAL immigrants? Those number are an order of magnitude greater.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 12 July 2010 9:18:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Young makes the observation, in seeking to explain the willingness on the part of both politicians and the public to keep revisiting the asylum-seeker debate, that:

"So it [the refugee/asylum-seeker/immigration issue]
typifies a deep cultural debate which can be boiled
down to an argument about two different types of equality
- outcome and opportunity - mixed in with conceptions
of cultural and national identity."

I suggest that the asylum-seeker issue is willingly revisited because it constitutes an opportunity for many Australians not of the commentariat to rebel, and at that legitimately, against the debate-suppressive dead hand of Political Correctness and the imposition of an elitist, as opposed to popular, policy with respect to immigration in general. Perhaps this desire to rebel is driven by an unarticulated resentment held by many Australians at a perceived implication of the policy of Multiculturalism, closely aligned with the immigration issue, as being an implicit disparagement of Australia's legal and constitutional heritage that has been developed in its own unique way, one derived largely, as is known by all, from Britain to which the large majority of Australians can trace their origins.

This disparagement is exemplified by the 1982 'conditional' disfranchisment of British subjects, such as many of the 'ten pound poms' (as are, self-descriptively, Julia Gillard's own parents) who migrated to Australia, despite the existence of an implicit right to enroll and vote contained within Section 44 of the Constitution. Up to a million of them, many of whom, like Julia, have lived here since infancy, robbed of a right to vote they used to have! At a time when others can just rock up in a boat by way of secondary-movement asylum-seeking and get citizenship (and thus the vote) within a few years!

Add to this implicit disparagement of Australia's historical polity explicit elitist accusations as to the existence of widespread latent, if not overt, 'racism' despite evident acceptance of migrants, and you will get an even deeper smouldering resentment against those perceived to be upholding those policies.

Thats your problem, Julia.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:33:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My problem with boat people is with Que jumping, but not in the sense that Graham mentions.

We have huge ques for public housing, people are waiting for years, even decades.

I will never accept that anyone should be able to jump to the top of that Que, simply by arriving in Oz waters, illegally, on a boat, without papers.

Just how long will it be before welfare agencies advise Ozzie citizens to jump on a boat, throw away their passport, & claim asylum, to get into a house?

All those Mexicans arriving in the US are no drain on US welfare. They disappear, as quickly as possible, get a job, & support themselves. This is quite different to the over half a million dollars in housing, & settlement grants our illegals get, followed by up to years of welfare support.

It's an old truism that charity should begin at home, but it should be applied here. No refugee should be given comfort greater than we give our own, & that is not the case now.

Until it is, I am against all refugee assistance, except that offered privately, by individuals.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:40:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841

Greg Sheridan wrote this interesting article in the Weekend Australian, where he highlights the real problem. The 1951
UN Convention is long out of date and is being misused for
modern day mass migration purposes.

It seems that Tony Blair could see it 10 years ago, but other
politicians seemingly never had the guts to back him. The
cost for Europe has been enormous. We learn nothing
from their mistakes it seems.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:42:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It amazes me how humans love someone to hate! Australians are no different.

Why we, who have so much, would pick on some miserable, bottom-of-the-pile folk from impoverished countries, some of which we are helping to destroy, is beyond my comprehension.

Why don't we hate the warmongers and the greedy? They are more deserving of hate.
Posted by David G, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:34:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G writes:

"It amazes me how humans love someone to hate! Australians are no different."

David G I do NOT hate asylum seekers. I do not blame anyone who seeks to escape from places like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan or similar sh*tholes.

If my family were living in Diepkloof in my native South Africa I would grab any chance I could get to move them to Australia.

But I do think we need to set firm limits to the number of refugees we are prepared to accept.

I suspect most people who are uneasy about the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers are like me. Not haters, just rational human beings thinking about numbers. Branding us as "haters" is not only childish, it displays a quite stunning degree of self-righteousness.

You are sounding like CJ Morgan using his favourite "I" word.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Asylum seekers represent the great divide between those who can imagine fleeing terror and those who can't.

Once you've imagined it or experienced it, there's no debate. You know you can't abandon people to torment and death.

Almost all the boat arrivals of the last few years have been granted refugee status. Those who aren't of course can be returned and are returned.

All this says about us is that we are so well-off we can't even begin to imagine the circumstances of those who aren't. We just want them to go away.

If you've been homeless and in fear of your life, you know exactly why asylum seekers get on boats. If you haven't, if you are lucky enough to have escaped those life extremes, then you've got a responsibility to your fellow human beings to imagine what it's like, and care about it.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Yabby on this and Greg Sherridan has it about right.

Nobody likes to see those in dire need refused, but we do not like to be conned by shonksters either. The problem with the arguments that briar rose puts forward is the difference between the success rate of applicants that arrive by air and those that come by boat. Or those that the UN process overseas. The only reason for the difference is that the boat arrivals destroy their papers so we cannot send them back. When we have a method to seperate the sheep from the goats I will change my stance against the illegal boat arrivals.

Yes Graham it will remain an election issue.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 12 July 2010 12:21:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, are you saying that if you're fleeing torture by plane you are more legitimate than if you're fleeing torture by boat?

Because that doesn't make much sense.

And it's been said a million times but here goes again: many people who flee persecution do not have the opportunity to obtain papers, and many also lose them. Arriving without papers does not mean the asylum seekers are illegitimate.

By papers, I assume you mean passports?

And what about the 50,000 who arrived by plane with passports and are now illegally in the country, maybe even fraudulently claiming benefits?
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 12 July 2010 1:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose, if you read the Sheridan article, there are around
16 million who would qualify for an Australian passport, if they
could just make it to our border. How many of those 16 million
do you think that we should take?
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 July 2010 2:16:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onyah, Yabby. Sixteen million, eh, all ready and raring to go. And here I thought it was a few thousand.

Look, why leave it at sixteen million? Surely all the dispossessed people in the world want to come to Australia and they are preparing to invade us.

At any moment they will flood into the streets of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, bringing their malnourished children. They will steal the milk from our lattes, sleep under all the bridges, beg on the streets, steal our washing from the line, rape our children, eat our pets, you name it and they'll do it.

We'd better contact Israel quick smart or the Americans, get them to help us. They know how to kill unwanted people. No one does it better, the jingle goes.

We need to put the cannons back on North Head. No time to lose!
Posted by David G, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done David G! You made me chuckle! Good for you Briar Rose.

OLO has always been a difficult place to show compassion. The attacks will be predictable.

PLEASE NOTE: (Right place or not), I have been unable to read your article GY because of the time it is taking to -load? It has gone on for several hours now. With any link.
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:31:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G, if ever you get some descent reason why we should take in the sharpies who arrive by boat, be sure to let us know.

Meanwhile spare us the emotive claptrap, & weak attempts at undergrad humour.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The number of refugees illegally entering Australia is trivial by world standards the 'problem' is mainly manufactured by the Coalition and its supporters in the media. If members of the government had any spine they would point this out to the voters and so not give the Coalition's fear-mongering any oxygen.
As 'stevenlmeyer' has indicated our real problem is the number of legal immigrants, there are too many vested interests profiting from our high population growth rate-many of them are Coalition supporters.
Posted by mac, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you're assuming that those 16 million are all hanging out to come to Australia.
What a scaremongering assumption, by you and Sheridan.

I think we should take the people who are arriving by boat and are judged to be refugees by the usual processes.

That's not 16 million, never has been, never will be.

What do you think we should do about the 50,000 overstayers who've already arrived by plane, with passports, and are living illegally in the country, according to Amnesty. They are possibly claiming welfare benefits and almost certainly working illegally, for much less than Australians would be paid?

They probably don't qualify for Australian passports, but we've got them here anyway, draining the welfare system and pinching jobs.

I don't hear anybody shouting about this. Only about the boat people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

Is this some racist thing?
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The illegals had passports etc. when they flew to Pakistan or Indonesia on the way here. They destroy them, on smugglers' advice, before they make the boat trip here because they know they have more chance of conning Australia without documents. They also avoid any attempt to gain asylum in the countries they pass through, even though UN facilities are available once they have left Afghanistan or Sri Lanka.

The old chestnut about illegals coming to Australia not being able to obtain documents, or losing documents, is a joke

Don't compare them with people who have arrived legally. The over stayers who, at least arrive legally, have been found of suitable character to be issued with an Australian visa. If they don't go home after their visa has expired, then of course they should be detained, and then deported - which many of them are. But they are not always easy to find.

Until either group is interviewed, Immigration doesn't have any idea who is 'fleeing torture'. There are Afghans and Tamils awaiting deportation now because they have not proved that they are in danger where they came from. They will be deported when it is safe for them to be deported in accordance with the UN ‘refoulement’ requirement, even though they were not in danger in the first place.

The fact of war being waged in a country is not sufficient for anybody to be granted international asylum. And, if an individual can prove a real threat of personal danger, no country is obliged to provide permanent asylum, which was the reason behind the Howard Government’s Temporary Protection Visas. People can be returned to their country of origin when it is safe for them. Nobody is entitled to expect asylum for all time, and only the country of asylum can decide whether or not they will be returned, not the United Nations. The increase in Australia’s population must be reduced and controlled. The only people allowed to stay permanently should be those invited here because they will fit in and be assets to the country.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia has the highest per capita intake of offshore refugees in the world. There is nothing 'trivial' about it - fewer white European Australians (compared with UK and America) so more chance of being over-run.

Or perhaps we are no longer allowed to do our bit while still retaining our own culture? Run ourselves down and into the ground, and lose everything?

I can't believe even the most irrationaly self-hater can want that!
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:03:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
briar rose,
You should know that most boat arrivals come by firstly flying unto Malaysia, for which they need passports, visas, etc. They destroy these docs so we cannot positivly identify them and send them back if we doubt their stories. The ones that come by air and then seek asylum have valid visas and if we doubt their stories we sent them packing. That is why the success rate for those that fly here is dramaticly lower than the boat arrivals. I suspect you know all this anyway.

Please tell me why a legitimate refugee with docs would discard his docs and pay a smuggler far more than the air fare from Malaysia to Aus. He would be here in a few hours and at very little risk as well as not be detained on arrival.

Or are you saying he walked from say Afghanistan to Indonesia.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh:
"The over stayers who at least arrive legally, have been found of suitable character to be issued with an Australian visa. If they don't go home after their visa has expired, then of course they should be detained, and then deported - which many of them are. But they are not always easy to find."

That's really funny - How can they be of "suitable" character if they've deliberately overstayed their visas, are living in the country illegally, and hiding from the deportation police?

How can they be of suitable character if they're taking under the counter payment for work, pay no taxes, and live on the run?

Compared with boat people who openly ask for asylum, who want to work and make a life in which they contribute to the country as fully as everyone else?
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:06:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that the refugee issue is whipped up by the media (for its own ends) and taken up by the pollies (for their own ends) - the general public are merely carried along for the ride.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The increase in Australia’s population must be reduced and controlled," says Leigh.

Struth, Big Brother is here already. 1984 is just around the corner. There is one good benefit. When the boat people hear of this they'll head in the opposite direction to Australia.

Perhaps I'll join them! Having a caged rat put on my face doesn't appeal to me at all.
Posted by David G, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EXACTLY Poirot!
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judging by the comments here, it is obvious we have to stop the boats
one way or another.
What I find interesting is that there is a predominance of men in the boats.
Where are their women ? Have they left them behind ? Cowards ?
As someone said put them to military training and send them back to
the Afghan army.

Look at the situation from a people traffickers point of view.
You have a good business going here, how could we increase our income
and reduce the risk ?

Simple increase the turnover by buying larger ships. By doing that
we could turn up anywhere around the Australian or New Zealand coast.
Each ships carrying capacity increases to the cube of its length.
Therefore a ship three times the length could carry at least 10,000
illegal immigrants and could sail direct from Pakistan and save all
that hassle getting to Indonesia.

Why wouldn't they be thinking like that ? They did in Europe.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>> Judging by the comments here, it is obvious we have to stop the boats one way or another.>>>

QUE? ? ?

Which comment did you read? Yabby's?

Of all people seeking asylum in Australia 90% arrive by plane and, as others have pointed overstay their visas and disappear into our cities.

10% arrive in leaking boats. Of that paltry 10%, 90% are found to be genuine refugees.

This means of the last 5000 people who arrived by boats 4,500 were found to be genuine, the others are sent back. This is not the case with people who arrive at our airports. We can't always locate them to process them. DUH!

Boat people do not have documents either because they had to flee for their lives, or have had their documents taken from them during their travels to safety. Indonesia does not treat refugees with the same level of humanity that Australia, in comparison, does. The reason more men are on the boats is because it is very risky and families will pool what money they have to get a family member to safety who can then apply for help for their families, far from cowardly, these men are very brave.

The arrival of boat people on our shores is not a crisis.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 12 July 2010 5:20:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I think we should take the people who are arriving by boat and are judged to be refugees by the usual processes.
That's not 16 million, never has been, never will be.*

So Briar Rose, you have no upper limit. Take the lot, according
to you it seems. Its years ago now, but at that stage an
Australian embassy employee told me that they have around 1 million
applications a year, to come to Australia.

Half a million a year try to get into Europe and a few hundred
thousand a year into USA, all prepared to die to live in the
cushy Western world. You might be in for a surprise!

Fact is that the easier you make it, open the borders and you
would indeed be flooded.

*What do you think we should do about the 50,000 overstayers who've already arrived by plane, with passports, and are living illegally in the country*

How many of those are backpackers, who already have homes in the
Western world, a ticket home and are doing all those jobs that
Australians don't want? We know they are going home sooner or
later and they won't cost taxpayers anything.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 July 2010 5:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I will say this s-l-o-w-l-y so you understand.

Backpackers are people who are on holiday in Australia.

Asylum seekers are fleeing their countries.

They are not the same people. Backpackers do indeed have homes to return to. Asylum seekers do not.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/majority-of-asylum-seekers-come-by-air/story-e6freon6-1225888697994

"ILLEGAL boat arrivals are a mere trickle compared to the thousands of people swarming through Australian airports to claim political asylum.

The boat arrivals are more likely to be genuine refugees, they don't receive special benefits nor "carry disease," and the idea they are queue jumpers is open to interpretation.

The information is contained in a Federal Parliament background note which explodes myths about boat arrivals.

"In Australia the vast majority of asylum seekers applying for protection arrive originally by air with a valid visa and then apply for asylum at a later date while living in the community," the note, authored by Janet Phillips, says.

"Estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 per cent of asylum applicants arrived by air originally."

Greens leader Bob Brown believes the visibility of boats approaching Australian shores allows politicians to cynically exploit fears of "invasion"."
Posted by Severin, Monday, 12 July 2010 5:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin, I will say it even more slowwwwwly for you.

The 50'000 constantly refered to includes visa overstayers,
ie backpackers and other holiday makers who have not gone
home yet. Some are on 457 visas.

They have a home, they have a passport, they have an airticket.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 July 2010 6:25:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven

the USA situation is very indicative of WHY many of us are outraged at the thought of people trying to come here in that manner.

CHARACTERISTICS of the MEXICAN INVASION.

-It IS an invasion. violence.. criminality... vast breaches of perimeters.

-They DO want power.

a) Aztlan movement. Listen for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwoHiuGMaTM

b) SEIU unionistts. Listen for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elisio+medina+wants+illegals+vote&aq=f

c) Militant anti white hate. Listen for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY&feature=related

In the Australian context, the religious/political affiliation of a significant number of 'boat people' translates into... aggressive, loud, anti Australian demonstrations (supported by the equally anti Australian un Australian Greens.)

Look and Listen....for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CURGnpA84qk&feature=related

Monorities attacking each OTHER in Melbourne (Tamils/Sinhalese)

See it with your own eyes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66MHi4NERkQ&feature=related

Yes.. 'refugees' will be an election issue.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 12 July 2010 7:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Poirot on this.

It is an issue though which does not seem to go away (or if it does it comes back). The rights and wrongs can be argued endlessly and their are valid points on both sides.

It seems to me that no political party has a proposal to deal with this which covers the main concerns of both sides and I'm not so sure that those concerns are mutually exclusive (at the extreme ends yes, for most no).

My summary of the points as I interpret them- no particular order
- Protection of Australia's interests and the people of Australia getting to make decisions about who gets to stay (and the emu already bolted when it comes to the arrival of my mob)
- Compassion for those who flee circumstances most of us can't begin to imagine
- Concern that many of those arriving are not genuine refugee's but rather seeking a better life
- Concern that by going easier on those arriving by boat we are not being fair to those who wait in overseas refugee camps and use official channels to seek to come here
- Concerns that many arriving here to flee absolute S#%tholes are bringing the cultural baggage with them that made their homelands such horrid places to live
- The numbers arriving by boat are relatively small
- One that's not mentioned often but I think that the cost of maintaining patrol's across our north western shores are not trivial and could be better used elsewhere, likewise for the costs of maintaining detention camps, oversea's processing facilities etc
- A fundamental dislike of having families imprisoned behind razor wire for extended periods and some concerns about the impacts of that on their long term wellbeing as well as their attitudes to Australia

Both major parties have talked of turning sea-worthy boats back. Both have used off shore processing/detention facilities and detention that provides little or no benefit to anyone other than keeping track of people.

TBC

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 July 2010 7:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

Are their ways we could be providing training and or employment to people waiting to see if they can stay?

Way's which allow them to experience our culture first hand and see how they like it as well as a chance for us to see how willing and able they are to try and fit in. Are there better options than the extreme's which seem to mark debate today?

I don't know what the answers are but I do find it difficult to believe that our country can't do better both by those in need and for ourselves.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 July 2010 7:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the benefit of Severin:

Severin sees things as black and white .Two distinct categories
1) The airport arrivals –often “ people who are on holiday”
2) The boat arrivals – poor unwashed escapees.

The reality is a great deal different –have a look at this-from today’s SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-smuggler-arrested-over-gangs-plot-to-ship-afghans-here-20100711-105p8.html

Note these passages:

1) “The journey began in … city of Quetta in western Pakistan… Most clients paid $US6000 to $US9000.”
2) “They travelled to Islamabad, some staying in the al-Hira Hotel, before flying to Indonesia in late October.”
3) “Even though they were all Afghans, they obtained valid visas to Indonesia by posing as a Quetta business delegation with the apparent endorsement of the Quetta Chamber of Commerce.”
4) “The ‘'delegation’' were even treated as official guests in Indonesia for a few days after they arrived.But authorities became suspicious when they learnt that Mr Hussain had obtained a big blue and white boat at Lombok.”

Now tell me again that the distinction is the backpackers are in holiday mode – and the others are not!
Posted by Horus, Monday, 12 July 2010 7:54:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazing how this subject always deteriorates into 50 ways to justify why i hate refo's. I don't have any particular problem with boat people just the exploitation of their position by the smugglers. For at least three elections we have argued this subject and no one has secured a workable policy. The pacific solution was a winner for Howard as it did stop the trade and in the end most of the refugees got to come here anyway. The sad bit was how it all evolved at the time.
The current policy being put forward by Julia seems to be a good one. It will involve the region not just us and establish a long term sustainable way of managing what is unlikely to be an improving problem in the years to come. unfortunately, as has become this governments modos operandi they forgot to consult with the stake holders and put a clear plan together first before announcing it..
Truth in the end is we have to many people here now and don't need more until we can get on top of the problems we have with supporting the current population.
Posted by nairbe, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:37:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin:>families will pool what money they have to get a family member to safety who can then apply for help for their families, far from cowardly, these men are very brave.<

I believe the boat "refugees" pay $20,000 to get to Australia and up to $45,000 to get to Canada (what a snub). I also know that the average household income in Afghanistan is $300 per year, in Sri Lanka the average is $800. So the boat person going to Canada from Sri Lanka payed 50 years wages per person, and the Afghani refugee landing here payed just over fifty years wages. Sort of like a morgtage is it not.

My issue is not refugees but boarder security, and I would like to know who put up fifty years wages to plant these "refugees", bypassing a handful of countries on the way. Family funding thats a laugh.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually it may just be that those pushing backpacker refugees applications are pretty closely related to/with those pushing boat people applications.

This is from Overloading Australia – By Mark O’Connor & William J Lines ( Page 113)

“One would imagine that few tourists in backpacking hotels are refugees. Yet backpacker magazines contain advertisements from lawyers offering to arrange refugee application"
Posted by Horus, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I finally was able to read the article without the need for a cut lunch and a toilet break.

"The choice of words is significant. Supporters of more liberal immigration laws almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant"."

Immigrant? Really? I think not. The term they use is 'illegals'.
_________________

"..............it's odds-on refugees >>>>>will inject themselves into the next federal election <<<<<<, and that's bad for Labor."

How very pushy of them.
______________________

The beat goes on.
and on...
..and on..
an..
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 12 July 2010 9:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course refugees will be an election issue. Politicians have been appealing to Australian xenophobia and racism since before Federation - indeed, the very first Act passed by the first Australian Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. The nation was created by 'white' politicians who did so with the express intention of keeping other 'races' out.

I think that Graham's analysis of current sentiments towards asylum seekers as reflecting the ideological divide between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes is interesting, but underestimates the entrenched antipathy towards non-'white' immigrants that has existed in Australia since the 19th century.

Indeed, none of the comments here thus far has been framed in terms of equality of outcomes or opportunity - rather, it's mostly just a rehash of the usual entrenched positions. While there may indeed be people who rationalise their attitudes to asylum seekers in those terms, they don't appear to be here.

I'm wondering if there's anybody at OLO who's actually considering changing their vote on the basis of Gillard's 'new' approach to asylum seekers. My suspicion is that all this dog-whistling isn't designed to actually attract votes, but rather to deflect attention from other more important policy areas where the Government has had a less than stellar performance.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:23:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just watching Q&A about Asylum seekers. I couldn'd believe my eyes & ears at the ignorance of supposedly highly educated people like Felicity Hampel, Lenore Taylor & Scott Ludlam. Cristpher Pyne was rambling about Labor & Chris Evans was lost for words. If such are the people which are in charge of our lives then we might as well be better off being outbred by the illegal newcomers who are so obviously so much more resourceful than our ignorant academic bureaucrats.
Posted by individual, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve never really concurred with Christopher Pyne much before, but I think he was pretty much on the mark on Q&A tonight.

See the program here if you missed it –

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2945281.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep23.flv
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You would :S
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, what are these things supposed to mean that you put at the end of your posts - :P and :S ??
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 12 July 2010 11:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refugees should not be an election issue.
The issue of refugees, along with other issues that matter, should be the subject of a referendum, which might as well coincide with the coming elections.

It is time that Australians get to vote on the things that really affect their lives, rather than just between two silly political parties that resemble each other anyway.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 12:00:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, "CJ, what are these things supposed to mean that you put at the end of your posts - :P and :S ??"

It means he has temporarily mislaid his Readers Digest - the Word Power section to be exact.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 6:46:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, I would have thought you would know they're emoticons, given that you use others frequently. Are you being disingenuous?

For Cornflower's benefit, since they obviously don't appear in her Reader's Digest, here's a list of them and what they mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons

I hope this helps --!--
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 8:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If refugees become a problem for labor at the next election it will be Labor's own fault for not loudly repeating over and over again, for the benefit of stupid voters, that the numbers of refugees arriving here are negligible when compared with our total intake of migrants.

Of course the numbers of our total intake of migrants might well be a problem for Labor, as like me, most Australians think they are way too high and include ethnic groups known to have caused too many troubles in other countries before us. The media, as is often the case, does nothing to educate us sensibly about these matters.
Posted by Forkes, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 8:56:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus

Your comments regarding my last post are completely fatuous.

I did not divide people into "holiday makers" and "boat people", I was clarifying Yabby's misconception that all people who arrive by plane and overstay their visas are backpackers. Please focus.

Ginx

I too found Graham's description of the conservative labelling of asylum seekers as "immigrants" a new slant on an old game. That's a new one on me, having had to listen to 11 years of the term "illegal aliens" spouted from Howard down and continued by his relic supporters today in the far-right of the Liberal party. Completely disingenuous.

The only point I agree with GY, is that despite the numbers of boat people being so small and most often found to be genuine, refugees will continue to be an election issue. Simply because it suits both Labor and the Libs to keep us looking in that direction.

That the focus should be on issues such as sustainable clean energy, separation of church and state, degraded infrastructure, health, education and transitioning from non-renewable resources to renewables, is being deliberately covered over.

As much as I like Julia Gillard as PM, while she continues to dance to the tune of the vested interests of the big-business lobby I don't see much chance of change.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 9:32:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin, the stats don't lie. Yes, the Liberal respondents often used the word "immigration" and "illegal" together, but that is what they see it as. Not refugees or asylum seekers but another way for people to immigrate. They use immigration on its own twice as frequently as immigration with illegal.

I don't think I've every heard John Howard use the term "illegal alien" - that's US terminology. Maybe he used it a couple of times, but I'd be interested in any evidence you can show that he used it all the time.

I don't understand what you think you have to gain by shooting the messenger. It is not creditable behaviour. But the Libs will be happy if you keep at it. I didn't mention it in the article because I couldn't justify it on this particular piece of research, but the issue also works for the Liberals because ordinary decent Australians don't like being called racist by intolerant members of the commentariat or anyone else. They see that as being prejudice.

Every time someone condemns someone as racist for their position on asylum seekers without trying to understand them and accepting that their view could be valid votes move away from Labor in protest.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:26:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I was clarifying Yabby's misconception that all people who arrive by plane and overstay their visas are backpackers.*

Severin, I never claimed that. Please stop shooting down your
own strawman arguments and focus on what was actually written
by others.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 11:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Friends, there is a great deal of passion on this thread. The problem seems to centre around what to do with these boat people. There seems to be three solutions:

1. Sink the boats.

2. Drag the boats back to where they came from.

3. Process the unfortunate people on Nauru.

There is however a fourth solution. Invade and occupy New Zealand (which should only take a weekend), then turn it into a giant boat people processing factory. Problem solved.

And, as an added bonus, we wouldn't have to suffer the humiliation which the All Blacks mete out to us each year or allow the New Zealanders to take all our good jobs!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 11:58:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Pendantic GY

The use of the word "illegal" in conjunction with boat people is possibly mandatory for the Liberal right.

Need we go over that use of "illegal" is incorrect given the follow FACTS:

# It follows from this Article that detention should only be resorted to in cases of necessity. The detention of asylum seekers who come "directly" in an irregular manner should, therefore, not be automatic, nor should it be unduly prolonged. The reason for this is that once their claims have been examined they may prove to be refugees entitled to benefit from Article 31. Conclusion No. 44 (XDDCVH) of the Executive Committee on the Detention of Refugees and Asylum Seekers sets the standard in more concrete terms of what is meant by the term "necessary". It also provides guidelines to States on the use of detention, and recommendations as to certain procedural guarantees to which detainees should be entitled.

# The term "coming directly" covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection could not be assured. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires, however, that the term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short time without having applied for or received asylum there. The drafters of the Convention introduced the term "coming directly" not to exclude those who had transited another country, but rather to exclude those who "had settled temporarily" in one country, from freely entering another (travaux préparatoires A/CONF.2/SR 14 p.10). No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly", and each case will have to be judged on its merits. The issue of "coming directly" is also related to the problem of identifying the country responsible for examining an asylum request and granting adequate and effective protection.

Cont'd
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 1:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are in fact solutions. Firstly the 1951 UN Convention needs
updating by 60 years, so that it stops being the migration rort
that it is now. It sounds like the Britsh Govt would agree,
according to Sheridan's article.

Next only give permanent residency to those refugees coming from
refugee camps, temporary protection visas for the rest, with the
Minister of Immigration able to make exceptions in some cases.

The people who are part of the migration rort want Australian
permanent residency. It is quite within our present powers to
reject that.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 2:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G,
Would it not be far simpler to acknowledge that the previous government actually stopped the boats coming by issueing TPVs to those found to be refugees and others without identity. But as the boats are still coming after this government suspended processing, obviously the 'illegals' do not believe what this government says, any more than I do.

The boats were stopped and this government has created the current problem.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 2:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee thanks for the link to the Wikipedia emoticons CJ. That’s all new to me. :-* :-* :-*

You wrote:

<< I hope this helps >>

And then you gave poor old Corny and Luddy the middle finger!

<< --!-- >>

Dear oh deary me! ( :> |
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 2:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Liberal National Party had a full-page ad in last weekend’s Townsville Bulletin and presumably many others papers around the country, with Abbott’s stern face in just about life-size full colour, and this message….

We will retake control of our borders to stop people smuggling

I will reverse Labor’s soft approach on border protection and stem the flow of record illegal arrivals with real action:

We will stop queue jumping and process all illegal boat arrivals offshore.

We will deny permanent visas to people who arrive illegally, granting temporary visas only.

We will require all those receiving temporary protection to work to receive welfare benefits.

Importantly, we will turn back the boats whenever we safely can.

The only we to stop people smugglers is to deny them a product to sell and take back control of our borders.

We did it before and we can do it again.

I ask for your support to do exactly that.

SUPPORT REAL ACTION.
----
Compare this to Gillard’s stuffing around with East Timor, which if it happens, will have to be very economically beneficial for East Timor and very expensive for Australia and will not be up and running for a long time.

Gillard is certainly on the right track compared to Rudd, but it would appear that Abbott is a clear front-runner at the moment, both in terms of majority support from the general community and in terms doing what has to be done – stopping the boats quickly and decisively.

Sure, some people will get caught in the middle. But the quicker the saga is brought to a close, the less people will be caught up in it in the longer term.

Then of course, Abbott should significantly boost our refugee intake and overseas aid, which won’t happen. But then it won’t happen under Gillard either.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 2:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
And you have not yet taken into consideration the 170 people that have drowned trying to get here since Labor put out the welcome mat.

So the sooner the boats are stopped the better. With all the half truths and stuffing around that is not likely to happen under labor.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 3:53:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently Ludwig's someone who'll switch his vote on the basis of which leader appears 'tougher' on asylum seekers. Anybody else?

Ludwig's gone from being a cheerleader for Gillard to a parrot for Abbott in less than a week. A week's a long time in lowest common denominator politics, apparently.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 4:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Over-use of the descriptive “illegal” continued...

# The term "asylum seeker" throughout the survey and these guidelines also includes individuals who have been rejected from the refugee status determination procedure on purely formal grounds (for example pursuant to the application of the safe third country concept) or on substantive grounds with which UNHCR would not concur (such as in case of persecution by non-State agents). In the absence of an examination of the merits of the case in a fair and efficient asylum procedure or when the rejection after substantive examination of the claim is not in conformity with UNHCR doctrine, such rejected asylum seekers continue to be of concern to UNCHR. These guidelines do not, however, relate to "rejected asylum seekers stricto sensu", that is, persons who, after due consideration of their claims to asylum in fair procedures (satisfactory procedural safeguards as well as an interpretation of the refugee definition in conformity with UNHCR standards), are found not to qualify for refugee status on the basis of the criteria laid down in the 1951 Convention, nor to be in need of international protection on other grounds, and who are not authorized to stay in the country concerned for other compelling humanitarian reasons.

http://www.alhr.asn.au/refugeekit/factsheet_3.html

Until an Asylum seekers claim is established, they are not deemed to be "illegal". If the claimant does not satisfy the requirements for refugee status, THEN they are deemed "illegal".

However, neo-conservatives tend to label all boat people as either "illegal" immigrants (or aliens) BEFORE the people have been assessed as being anything other than seeking asylum.

Some people appear to have forgotten in Australia a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The continued use of the word “illegal” to describe boat people is as inaccurate as it is deliberately heinous.

Tony Abbott & Julie Bishop take note.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 5:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To a great many of you, wake up to yourselves and stop behaving like frightened little children. Do you think these refugee's or illegals as you will are going to take your amazing life away from you just like your ancestors did to the Aboriginal peoples.(now that should stir it up)
Yes the government just cannot seem to get it right but to even consider taking Abbott seriously is a dangerous step down the extremely ignorant far right for which this country has been struggling to stay away from. If Toni is so spot on with his big add's then hell, let's sink a few boats on the quiet and start some labour camps for the rest. I'm sure your conscience would cope, after all you can go to church on Sunday and be forgiven.
The refugee issue is global, not restricted to Australia. We are one of the weakest countries when it comes to helping out unless you count wonderful places of human rights like China, Iran and North Korea which some seem to think are role models. The real fix to this problem is to stem the tide at the source and develop new strategies with our neighbours and allies to establish a series of processing centres that are linked and able to operate with a new agreement buy the UN that reflects the current situation.
All the racist refo bashing i find appalling from a group of people that can say and develop some really intelligent ideas on other subjects.
Posted by nairbe, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 5:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin, I'll be interested in the second part of your post...?

I'm bemused by what has necessitated it!
______________________

"......because ordinary decent Australians don't like being called racist by >>>>intolerant members of the commentariat<<<< or anyone else. They see that as being prejudice.

>>>>>Every time someone condemns someone as racist for their position on asylum seekers without trying to understand them and accepting that their view could be valid<<<<<...."

Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:26:31 AM

I find this utterly astonishing!

OF COURSE those who are critical of asylum seekers are not ALL racist-but VERY many damn well are!! And on a forum that you yourself praise as the 'OLO way'/ an 'ethos'-should allow posters the absolute right to express the view-;the allegation of racism if that is what they percieve.

I am personally offended that you have allowed some extraordinary statements on OLO recently,-yet you find any criticism of what some DO construe as racist and intolerant views,- to be offensive!

'Intolerant members of the commentariat'? Excuse me?

As a website owner of a prominent discussion forum, it is implicit upon you to remain free of bias,-accommodating ALL views within the legal guidelines of defamation.

I venture to suggest that you have allowed your personal views to effect your statements in your comments to Severin.

The 'dressing down' is public, and thus my comments to you are equally public.

It is very disappointing.

Am I now to be dealt with in the same manner?
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 7:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severen it is you who need to focus

This is your nursery rhyme fantasy :
“boat people do not have documents either because they had to flee for their lives, or have had their documents taken from them during their travels to safety.”
“these men are very brave.”

But, the reality is more like this:
1) “The journey began in … city of Quetta in western Pakistan… Most clients paid $US6000 to $US9000.”
2) “They travelled to Islamabad, some staying in the al-Hira Hotel, before flying to Indonesia in late October.”
3) “Even though they were all Afghans, they obtained valid visas to Indonesia by posing as a Quetta business delegation with the apparent endorsement of the Quetta Chamber of Commerce.”
4) “The ‘'delegation’' were even treated as official guests in Indonesia for a few days after they arrived.But authorities became suspicious when they learnt that Mr Hussain had obtained a big blue and white boat at Lombok.”

Unfortunately Severin, reality is a much,much less romantic than your fantasies have you imagine.
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 7:49:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talk of “regional solutions” and “long term sustainable solutions” all sounds very nice and appealing ---but it is NOT realistic.

The only involvement -- the region-- is likely to take up is as transit point/stop-over on the way to OZ.

Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand el la are NOT inclined to accept thousands of interlopers/ ILLEGALS.
And the ILLEGALS themselves, don’t want such second-prize locations -- they want affluent, welfare states --- like Australia, Canada, The US & NZ.
(That should have been driven home very loud & clear by the Oceanic Viking saga – the Oceanic Viking hijackers , like the Tampa hijackers before them, didn’t want to be part of any regional solution— nor did Indonesia, for that matter!)

This “regional solution” sounds increasingly like spin designed to defuse the issue and tide labor over till after the election.

Arranging for ILLEGALS to be processed in East Timor or anywhere else, is just a waste of time and money.
It will only survive till some incident –likely a staged incident –occurs, then some OZ govt, intimidated by the whinings of the Severins, Briar Roses & David Gs will go all weak at the knees and quickly, and very quietly, usher them all to OZ, and will gift the multi-million processing complex to the local strong man as a summer palace.
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 7:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Ginx, now I'm not allowed to defend myself and I'm not allowed to have views, even though this site is the result of my blood sweat and tears and is so open and tolerant that it allows people to criticise me, like you and Severin are doing?

I am the author of the article. Severin decided to question my reporting and use of particular terminology. I responded.

She has since gone off on an irrelevant excursion on whether the asylum seekers are illegal immigrants or not. Wasn't my point. My point was that those who want tougher treatment of asylum seekers see them not as refugees but as immigrants. It is the noun, not the adjective, that carries the weight.

I think Horus' posts demonstrate another thing that I was pointing out. You use that sort of a high-handed approach and other people will dig in. He even puts illegal in caps.

It doesn't worry me that people like you and Severin use these sort of tactics. They bring their own reward, and it is not the one you want. I was just pointing that out.

And if you think that answering your criticism equals being "dressed down" then I guess that is how you must be feeling at the moment. Take a second to think how the people you "dress down" must also feel.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 8:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus,

Thank you for your measured, practical posts, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The problem is that some here have much shorter memories that the electorate.

General Comment,

The elephant in the room as far as the electorate is concerned is over-enthusiastic population growth through immigration and the broad range of problems that are known to result from that. The political parties and particularly the Greens are desperately hoping that no-one breaks out of the corral to talk about population because that would really blow the lid on things.

If Tony Abbott is game enough and he probably is, he could wipe the floor with both Labor and the Greens by making a reduction in Rudd's (and Gillard's) record immigration numbers. - Not a vague promise of 'maybe we will look at it sometime in the future' (the Greens), or possibly we could move some of the present population somewhere else to make room for more migrants in the big cities. What is needed is a simple, practical statement by Abbott that the numbers are unsustainable now and some reeling back is necessary.

That the overpopulation elephant is dangerous is easily seen from the devastating fall from grace by Kevin Rudd immediately following his boast of a 'Big Australia'. Julia Gillard is awake to the danger. That is why her statement about population was such an urgent priority. However with nothing concrete from Julia since, voters are thinking that Julia's promise was a convenient diversion, all talk and business as usual.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing I should have added but it escaped during cropping was that although I do agree with Horus' sentiments, there is also little doubt that labels like 'illegal' will detract from otherwise reasonable arguments.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< And you have not yet taken into consideration the 170 people that have drowned trying to get here since Labor put out the welcome mat. >>

Good point Banjo.

<< So the sooner the boats are stopped the better. With all the half truths and stuffing around that is not likely to happen under labor. >>

That’s about the size of it. Good on Gillard for reversing Rudd’s terrible folly. But it really is not enough.

----
<< Apparently Ludwig's someone who'll switch his vote on the basis of which leader appears 'tougher' on asylum seekers. >>

CJ, I will be most unlikely to vote for either of them because they are both hooked into the continuous growth paradigm and very high immigration and population growth, which is a whole lot more important than the asylum seeker issue.

But yes, I am adaptable in my level of support, depending on what the two leaders say and what policies they put out. How about you? Are you totally fixed in your opinions of our PM and her counterpart? I would hope not.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 13 July 2010 11:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So Ginx, now I'm not allowed to defend myself and I'm not allowed to have views, even though this site is the result of my blood sweat and tears and is so open and tolerant that it allows people to criticise me, like you and Severin are doing?"

Where did I suggest you were not entitled to a view webmaster?
I would like to know.

IF-your website was as open and tolerant as you suggest, then you yourself would not be so offended by views that disagree with yours! IF-your website were so open and tolerant-there would be no need to mention that you 'allow' the views of myself and Severin.
___________________

"I think Horus' posts demonstrate another thing that I was pointing out. You use that sort of a high-handed approach and other people will dig in. He even puts illegal in caps."

THIS is unbiased comment by a website owner!? Praise for one criticism of the other?

"It doesn't worry me that people like you and Severin use these sort of tactics.."

'People like' me and Severin? Use these 'tactics'?
___________________________

"Take a second to think how the people you "dress down" must also feel."

Well I didn't expect them to spit the dummy, that's for sure!!
____________________________________________________

Cont'd (if I'm able to!)
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 12:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2)

IF you were completely unbiased in your views on the subject of asylum seekers-this extraordinary exchange would never have occurred.

Far from 'not being allowed to have an opinion', you have used your ownership of this site as a weapon to ...dress down!.....those who expressed THEIR opinion of what you wrote.

EVERY writer has been/is subject to both negative and positive criticism, by posters on OLO. If your site is open and tolerant, then why are you attacking the poster/s who did the same with you?

Eg:-'High-handed/tactics/people like you..'

You belie your own 'charter'.

There is a large and increasingly strident criticism of any compassion being shown to asylum seekers by posters on OLO. Why is that?

Why do you think Graham, that some of your posters are quite succinct in their remarks?

It isn't rocket science!

Do you think the following line is just coincidence or is it born out of endorsement by you?:-

"Horus,

Thank you for your measured, practical posts,....."

What kind of equality have you shown to your member
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 12:42:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That last line looks obscene!

I meant members.
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 1:05:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< …the 1951 UN Convention needs updating by 60 years >>

It certainly does Yabby. It is full of fundamental flaws.

Here’s Greg Sheridan’s article that you mentioned:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841

Some quotes:

<< At the heart of the problem is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It is not only not working any more, it is setting up positively perverse incentives and having all manner of unintended and destructive consequences. >>

<< A decade ago, [Jack] Straw pointed out: "The (1951) convention was designed for an era when international flows of people were on a much smaller scale than they are today. Intercontinental travel was rare, difficult and expensive. >>

<< Temporary protection visas are completely in accord with the convention. >>

Check out this paper: The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm#major

The biggest issues in Australia with the Convention are that there is an obligation not to penalise asylum seekers for entering a country 'illegally' and that there is no account taken of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum seekers on receiving countries.

This is hopeless, as the numbers of asylum seekers would absolutely skyrocket if we were to treat them all virtually as free Australian citizens as soon as they arrived.

Quite frankly, the Convention is a shocker! Gillard should be pushing for its immediate reform and pulling out of it forthwith, as a matter of principle that it is impossible to reasonably adhere to.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 8:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK - we'll scratch Ludwig as someone who'll vote for either of the majors on the issue of asylum seekers. Is there nobody here whose voting decision on election day will be based on refugee policy?

If not, then what's the point of all this angst about a few boat people in the context of the forthcoming election?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 8:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello CJ,

Yep - here's one.

When I noted Julia swing into line with Howard/Abbott government policy on refugees, I realised that Julia's ascension to the leadership was just going to me more "me too" media driven/populist politics. Sad really - I feel as if my vote isn't worth a jot, so I'll give the Greens a vote in the Senate and I'll probably vote informally in the house of Reps.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 8:52:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes CJ, there sure are, me for one, but you knew that of course, & at least 90% of our bar-b-que mob, too.

The moment we saw her ladyship was trying to to ride two horses at the same time we knew she had a split personality, or at least soon would have.

She wants the western suburbs of Sydney to believe she is anti boat people, but still wants our elites in academia to believe she is all for open slather. How she handled this question was the big test of her, for many. What ever it takes, won hands down.

Well, if anyone needed convincing that she is a bare faced liar, she has cleared up that question. Now all we need is to see what percentage of Ozzies want a proven liar for PM.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 9:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely no one of sound mind could possibly suggest that Abbot should be Prime Minister of Australia. I mean wasn't 11 years of John Howard enough?

Of course, it depends which side of the fence you sit on. If you're wealthy or a miner and you believe in capitalism and the survival of the fittest (or the most cunning) then Abbot the Rabbit might appeal.

But if you're part of the peasantry, the salt of the earth, the ones that Howard screwed over and over, Julia is the only choice.

Don't let Abbot in the door! Vote for Julia!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 9:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I've finally figured out why academia, & public servants, [both the same really] are so anti Howard.

It's all in what he, as distinct from labor expected from them.

Labor are happy to pay them double what they were worth, & ask nothing in return, except their vote of course.

Howard actually wanted his moneys worth in work, which is impossible for most of them to produce. So any policy of Howard's was/is viewed with extreme suspicion, in case it is some trick to make them do a days work, every day.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:23:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY

From your article:

>>> The choice of words is significant. <<<

Totally agree. Your choice of words is very significant and telling. You may claim my posts went off on a tangent, however any astute read will know I was taking issue with your choice of words and for good reason. Consider the rest of your statement:

>>> Supporters of more liberal immigration laws almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant". <<<

Libs, Nats and others favour "illegal" immigrant/alien/boat people whatever. The important word you deliberately missed was "illegal". The far-right of the Liberal party attach the descriptive "illegal" to any type of asylum seeker ALL the time.

Indeed, choice or omission of words is highly significant. Add to this is your confusion between two words:

"attack"

and

"criticism"

Nothing I nor Ginx has written on this thread could be remotely construed to be an attack.

I have extensively criticised your omission of the word "illegal" for very good reason. That you react personally to my opinion is your problem. Mine is to present my point of view on Online Opinion to the best of my ability. I may not be the most articulate or succinct writer on these pages, however I am as entitled to present my POV as anyone else here.

As for the point of your article: "Refugees will be an election issue".

Sad, but true. Both Labor and the Libs will continue to use 10% of Asylum seekers as a major issue leading up to the federal election. And achieve little else.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article.

As I understand it, the 'What the people want' polls are NOT polls or samples of the views of OLO users, or even necessarily OLO viewers, but of others completely external to this Forum.

In particular, the contention over the use of the term 'illegals', one of which we are all thoroughly familiar on OLO, whether or not we agree with that use. The point is that those who favour that terminology on OLO are not part of the sample polled. The interesting thing is that amongst a sub-set of that sample that would be perhaps expected (if we are to believe the assertions of antagonists to the use of the term 'illegals' ON OLO) to PREFER to use the term 'illegals', 70% instead chose to use the term 'immigrants'.

Here are GrahamY's exact words:

<<In our most recent survey on the issue
only about 10 per cent of people nominated
it as a top-of-mind "most important issue".
(This is from a weighted sample of 599.)
Of these, 7 per cent* used a variation of
"immigrant" to describe the arrivals, while
only 2 per cent called them refugees and
1 per cent asylum-seekers.

The choice of words is significant.
Supporters of more liberal immigration laws
almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker"
and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while
Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant".>>

*Should maybe have been 'percentage points'?

That some are missing the point in this discussion may also be borne out by the 'todays most popular (etc)' displays. Here's a screenshot from yesterday: http://twitpic.com/251zx3 . One from today: http://twitpic.com/2520od . Note the article never topped, and has dropped from, the display, although much discussed by some OLO users.

What seems to be indicated is that the overall concern of this set is one as to immigration, not refugees or 'illegals'. That can only be good!

Other stuff is happening.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#175737

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10659#176320
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest

If I understand your previous post correctly, you are saying that there is no point to Graham's article. I posit this because of your links to two of your own authored posts on completely different topics.

Self promotion can be healthy.

:P

As for GY's article, I concur there is no point to it, but he can at least treat his OLO audience with due respect by accurate journalism and not skewed towards either those in favour of assisting refugees or those agin' it. I leave the question of bias to our gentle readers.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:57:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10680#176462

Yabby, spot on, but you are still missing the point. These politicians who did not back Blair are not gutless.

They are International Communists who want to destroy Modern Western Democratic Capitalism, from within, by introducing Moral & Ethical Degeneration into our Society or Culture.

Multiculturalism & Mass immigration are just one of the ways they have been doing this for 50 years now.

It is not scientifically possible for anybody to be genuinely stupid enough to be introducing these policies by mistake, when they are proven failures overseas, decades ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://addictassociation.com/

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7928812/woman-jailed-for-having-sex-with-son

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7927676/lesbian-lovers-jailed-over-vicious-bashing

This is a deliberate plan to bankrupt our treasuries & destroy our culture. The Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition are trying to produce an Orwellian "1984" "Big Sista" UN NWO 4th Reich.

Hail Gillard, sieg heil, sieg heil, sieg heil.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 1:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a very emotive issue as can be seen
from the comments.
It already is an election issue.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinions
but I wish that instead of appealing to people's
fears, the media, and the
politicians, would tell the truth regarding this
issue, and not use it for their own political gains.

Frankly I can't understand how such a small number
of people can actually be considered a threat to our
way of life or to this country.

They are not "illegal,"
for a start, because they are entitled to seek asylum
and they can't be considered "illegal" until their case
is heard in a court of law. All the other so called
"facts" that are being bandied about have no substance
and once investigated turn out to be merely spin.
Yet unfortunately people buy into it.

Dear oh dear...its all rather frightening and very,
very, sad. This is not the tolerant Australia that I
grew up in. I want Her back!
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 2:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

I agree.

I must say...I have heard many times refugees being referred to as "illegals" by members of the Liberal Party...each time I heard it, I always sat up and took notice because that termination was inappropriate - especially coming from members of parliament.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 2:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin, you really need to read what is written properly before shooting your mouth off. You accused me of being pedantic when I pointed out that "immigration" is used on its own twice as frequently as with "illegal". I didn't deliberately leave anything out. The term "aliens" was only used once.

The point which eludes you is that both sides are talking past each other. One sees the issue in terms of refugees, the other in terms of immigration. The significance of the use of "illegal" in that sense is that anyone who tries to migrate without proper permissions is illegal. If you approach it from the position of immigration it's not villification at all, just a statement of fact.

Another point that seems to elude you is that explaining to you what someone, or a group of someones, thinks is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I can separate my ego from the subject. I don't try to put words into their mouths.

I actually prefer the term "asylum seeker". It's the half way position and I think the most neutral.

Why you seem determined to villify me at the same time as holding yourself out as a model of tolerance is beyond my understanding.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 2:39:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had reached my post limit so had a '9 hour' wait. During that time I felt that perhaps it was unnecessary to take my comments further, even though I wanted to respond to you Forrest.

Given that this topic now has added posts...., I feel compelled to make further comment. Funny that..

"What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article."

This is a very unfortunate remark. It unilaterally concludes that one is unable to grasp the tenet of a post/article.

A finding quite astonishing coming from a poster with a track record of attention to detail! Yet Forrest;-you have failed to understand WHY 'energy and passion' were necessary.

I need to make it very clear that I was not disagreeing with the message in it's totality-I WAS critical of terminology within that message and what it showed.

I remain critical- even more so now, given the latest post.....s!

Perhaps it might be better to finish.......at this time at least, by expressing my strong concern at the glaringly apparent situation here;-that an article writer must not be subject to any negative criticism if that article writer owns the site.

What else is there to conclude?

This is a discussion forum! Views expressed are supportive or critical. It is the nature of the forum beast.

But not if you own the site.Then you can use that ownership to attack...vilify!!....criticise? posters who have disagreed with you/your article!

So? discuss/support/disagree all you like-with one exception; where you can do the first two, but not the last.

It is absurd and very sad.
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Ginx and Severin (in afferbeck lauder),

Responding in chronological order to queries with respect to my opening statement that "What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article.", first to Severin, who says:

"If I understand your previous post correctly,
you are saying that there is no point to Graham's
article. I posit this because of your links to two of
your own authored posts on completely different topics."

No, I am not saying there is no point to Graham's article. The point of his article is that he is reporting the result of a survey of responses as to what constitute 'top of mind' issues among intending voters. His focus has been upon the (to OLO users) seemingly unexpected terminological preference for the use of 'immigrants' among a sub-set of intending voters that might have been expected to prefer the term 'illegals'. This sub-set he reports as comprising only 10% of respondents. He then gives his interpretation as to what this perhaps unexpected preference for terminology may mean for voting intention.

The only alternative title that I can see that he could have given his article, based on this 'What the people want' report, would have been 'Immigration will be an election issue'. We all know that there is a bi-partisan consensus NOT to debate immigration, probably none better than Graham with his acknowledged Liberal Party affiliations. If he had titled it 'Illegals ...', or 'Boat people ...', or even his own preference, 'Asylum seekers ...' (terminologies NOT favoured amongst the responses) he would doubtless have been accused of beating up or side-tracking the issue.

The links to posts of my own to two articles dealing with the income quarantining issue are there not so much for self-promotion (as healthy as you may see that being), but to suggest at least one issue that perhaps should be a 'top of mind' one for the other 90% of respondents of whose concerns we are left uninformed.

Sorry, Ginx, out of words this post.

TBC
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 15 July 2010 8:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More deliberate, premeditated lies from the Loony, Left, CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bqQetlgJ4

Graham Young's article & comments were written with finely, nuanced, precision language so as to be scrupulously fair, reasonable, moderate, middle of the road, stuff, but the PC, Lunatic Fringe Marcusians, have as their First Commandment or Golden Rule.

1, Ruthless, Relentless, Criticism.

PhD & Doctorate historians have written well researched books, articles, documentaries on the subject of the PC, Thought Police, who at the "Frankfurt School" invented "Multi/Cultural & Economic Terrorism".

Former Communists have admitted publicly to using this Perversion to destroy Modern Western Capitalist Democracy.

http://www.reich4.de/Begriffe/sittlichkeit/?lang=en

Since the "Iron Curtain & Berlin Wall" fell all of the secret police archives have been available & studied, including instructions from Moscow KGB to Communist Party members in Australia & everywhere else.

All the necessary evidence is available to support a prima facie case of treason, against All CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists, who form the far left factions within the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition, who have infiltrated Politics, Bureaucrookracy, Academia, Judiciary & Journalism.

If the incoming TA Conservative Coalition government does not act swiftly to remove these "Alleged" criminals From positions of Power & Influence, they too will be "One Term Wonders".

Many of these scum are wealthy, seizing all their assets with "proceeds of crime" legislation would do wonders for the budget black holes they have created.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 15 July 2010 9:02:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Forrest

Someone who wrote in their article on the importance of words? First GY tried sleight of hand:

>> Yes, the Liberal respondents often used the word "immigration" and "illegal" together, but that is what they see it as. <<

It is defamation. Well, would be if refugees has some political clout.

Then went on to say

>> I don't think I've every heard John Howard use the term "illegal alien" - that's US terminology <<

Suggesting I search for usage of "illegal alien" by J Howard. To what end? We (Australian public) are aware of his consistence use of the word "illegal" in front of "immigrant". It is nothing short of deliberate slander. GY's defence of deliberate skewing of language is contemptible. And its effect on myself and other readers, was to lose any point he was trying to make.

Omitting the most common adjective uttered by neo-conservatives (I don't include all the Libs, having fond memories of Petro Georgiou) and then vilifying those who deign to point out this glaring omission?

On Tony Abbott's own website he refers to boat people as "illegal immigrants". Indicating how entrenched this language has become.

Ginx and I are entitled to an apology for being lectured and personally vilified by the editor of OLO.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 15 July 2010 9:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

Ginx, also in reference to my opening statement, says:

"This is a very unfortunate remark.
It unilaterally concludes that one is
unable to grasp the tenet of a post/article.

A finding quite astonishing coming from a
poster with a track record of attention to detail!"

Ginx, it is indeed unfortunate, if you thought that I was suggesting others are unable to grasp the tenet of the article. I wasn't trying to patronise. My writing style does tend to be opaque, I admit. I do however know that we all have a tendency to see what we want to see in things like OLO Articles, especially if we think we see them. The term 'illegals' does indeed appear in both article and discussion, and for those already sensitized to the injustices surrounding the circumstances of those to whom such terms are applied, its 'shoot on sight'.

It happens. Trained soldiers, let alone 'outcomists', have been known to do it.

What I am trying to suggest, particularly in your case Ginx, in view of your relatively unique proposed 'bridging' between OLO and (at least) Senator Xenophon in relation to the income quarantining issue, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#176703 , is that your energies may be better spent elsewhere than in not only 'shooting the messenger', but accusing him of attacking and vilifying posters. When he posts here, he does so under the same constraints as apply to all. None of your posts have been removed.

I say this not so much to defend GrahamY (who can defend himself) in this thread, as to indirectly try to focus attention upon much more serious issues of possible attempted censorship of, or interference with, OLO from outside the Forum.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3784&page=0

The way I see it, GrahamY is having to put a lot of effort into resisting such pressures or interference. By way of illustration, I'm DAMN SURE I posted this, http://twitpic.com/21zm31 , on OLO, some time between 11:32:27 AM and 5:35:17 PM on Saturday, 3 July 2010. Did anybody see it? I was giving a purely theoretical explanation here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#175703

Ponder.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 15 July 2010 10:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alas it seems we must continue our chat Forrest-and I know from both our posting styles we are in for the long haul.

I did not see your latest post on Income Quarantining, (I check back on these topics, and then move on as we all do). It is flattering therefore to read your comments, and I thank-you. I shall be attending that little soirée in two weeks.

However not withstanding such compliments I must take issue with this:

"......is that your energies may be better spent elsewhere than in not only 'shooting the messenger', but accusing him of attacking and vilifying posters. When he posts here, he does so under the same constraints as apply to all. None of your posts have been removed."

Can I suggest to you diplomatically Forrest, that I, not you, will decide my priorities on issues?
Another glaring point is that you are doing what you accuse me of!!

YOU are defining my actions on one matter as laudable,-and another as 'shooting the messenger/accusing him...'.

My point? That is your-'opinion'. I accept that we all make value judgments on what we observe/read. Yo do so; I do so; we all do so.

Why then do you disparage (and that IS what you are doing!), my view on this matter?

If Mr Young posts here under 'the same constraints that apply to all'-then there would be no reason for him to remove posts! (I have never expected that he would-IF he is 'the same as us').

And equally there SHOULD be no reason to be bogged down in the type of discussion we are having now!

I am frankly appalled that YOU-you in particular, would see things as you have.

BUT: that is your opinion.

Cont'd..
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 15 July 2010 11:52:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2)

I am entitled to mine. This is a discussion forum. NO-ONE should have to justify why they have disagreed with a whole or part of an article-if it is written by a website owner!

If that is the case,-and it appears that it is!,- then clearly that website owner MUST be given different treatment to others...posters/members-and article authors.

That is patently absurd, particularly when a site is defined by its owner as 'open and tolerant' !
_________________________________

This has at least opened up an interesting point, which perhaps needs debate on an - open and tolerant forum.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 15 July 2010 11:53:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've just come across an interesting website:

http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources09.html
"Debunking the myths about asylum seekers."

It's worth a read.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 July 2010 5:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

What prevents you from resolving this with moderator/s by email rather than killing the thread?

There needs to be a new rule:

'Members demean, ignore or question the integrity of moderators on the forum should expect to see their posting privileges withdrawn.'

That is how it is on every other site and it works to free up, rather than limit, discussion.

Maybe if there was a small annual fee for membership of the forum?
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 15 July 2010 5:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had been observing this topic in an endeavour to respond to Forrest reasonably promptly if he chose to make a response to my last post.

We are at least having a civil discussion, which is pleasant.

However: I have logged on to respond to you Cornflower,-it's a pleasure to do so.

Our views/opinions differ. Very much so. You know it. I know it. So you seize an opportunity to come into this current discussion to criticise me. Such a transparent act, and of course it makes a mockery of this:-

"What prevents you from resolving this with moderator/s by email rather than killing the thread?"

'Killing the thread'? Really?

And....,why should you assume that I have had no private contact with the webmaster? What contact I may or may not have had, is private.

It is none of your business.
__________________

TBC- if I can.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 15 July 2010 6:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx, "So you seize an opportunity to come into this current discussion to criticise me."

Horses' apples, I am making a very reasonable appeal for you to moderate your responses.

Ginx, "It is none of your business."

You have that quite wrong, I quite enjoy this forum and would like to see it continued.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 15 July 2010 9:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Remainder of my post was on file. Now adding to it:-

".......reasonable appeal to moderate my responses".

You seem obsessed with moderation!-,however don't try to take over the role! And don't patronise me. That is about as stupid as the er, horses apples thing.

And Cornflower?? In your zeal to show your OLO patriotism, you failed to understand that my 'mind your own business' comment was in reference to private emails..

YOU raised that. I repeat;-mind your own business.
_________________________________________________________________

"'Members demean, ignore or question the integrity of moderators on the forum should expect to see their posting privileges withdrawn.'

That is how it is on every other site and it works to free up, rather than limit, discussion."

Emphatically it is NOT how it is 'on other forums'!!

1)I have NEVER seen such a clause, EVER in forum regulations-and I would suggest that if it were to be introduced to this one it would destroy the credibility of the 'ethos' of OLO.

2)There is another and far more important obvious point that you have selectively missed. I have NOT been critical of a moderator! I am critical of aspects of an article written by someone who as it happens owns the site!

I will NOT treat him any differently from any other article writer.

Is that clear?

Graham Young is not a fool,- (and btw., I bloody well HATE having a conversation about someone who is here present. Unfortunately these somewhat bizarre twists have made that necessary)- I doubt that as a writer,- he would want to be treated differently!

IF that is the case, he would have little respect from other writers who routinely engender bouquets and brickbats.

Just bouquets for GY eh? Don't be absurd.
_____________________

A 'small fee'? Why put that in unless you see it as a way to 'weed out undesirables'.

Not a good look for an 'open and tolerant' forum eh?
______________________________

An irresistible opportunity for a cheap shot Cornflower? You just couldn't help yourself could you?

NOW: which one of us is going to concentrate on "killing the thread"?!?
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 15 July 2010 10:59:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx and Severin are putting in a pretty good effort in cyber bullying. Ginx more than Severin. Ginx's latest posts have veered away from the subject to the extent that if she continues this I will suspend her and delete any offending posts. There is a Forum Rule that posts be on topic and her posts are not on topic.

She and Severin appear to take exception to anything that I write. As long as they confine themselves to what I have written that's fine. But now Ginx is going on about a range of issues which really have to do with moderation, including a nonsensical argument that when I answer their criticisms I am using my position as Chief Editor (she calls it "owner" but I am not the owner) to "dress them down". I'm not.

But if she continues to divert this thread she will have her posts removed and there will be consequences in terms of posting privileges.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 15 July 2010 11:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY

>> She (Ginx) and Severin appear to take exception to anything that I write. <<

Not true. I only take exception to deliberate bias, I am not at all concerned whether the author is the CEO of OLO or other contributor. I have have stated my critique of GY's article clearly and provided solid evidence for my point of view.

I would also like to point out that GY has accused Ginx and myself of cyberbullying, if that is at all true then GY should take action. However he appears to have missed Cornflower's off-topic provocation completely - I am sure this is an accidental oversight. Therefore, if any action is to be taking concerning behaviour on this thread, it would be most remiss to exclude Cornflower.

BTW - I agree with GY that refugees will be an election issue, if I had not made this point clear earlier, I apologise. As I stated in my first post to this topic I believe there are far more important issues facing Australia than a handful of people seeking asylum. Boat people are not a crisis for Australia.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 16 July 2010 8:35:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can do no better than what you have written Severin.

I know full well that asylum seekers will be an election issue.

They are a handy little tool after all...by BOTH majors.

Other than that? I have no issue with any matter that I have raised - I would/will do it again under the same circumstances.

I have said that these 'developments' have surprised me,-frankly, they haven't. Spin is everywhere-it is not just the domain of politicians.

With the exception of one prominent forum, this type of thing is quite common. Given that there is a life outside of forums for us all,-things like this are not life changing. They are par for the forum/s 'profile' course..
______________________________________

If this post is now construed as 'off-topic', then it will be removed, and I will be suspended.

So be it.
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 16 July 2010 12:19:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Graham, but I found a couple of your lines to be a little peculiar. I did rather enjoy your contention that people with more Liberal views on immigration tend to be Labor and Greens, whereas Liberals and Nationals tend to be less Liberal...
The other statement I found a little peculiar was:
"And as equality of opportunity is more associated with the Coalition, and is more favoured by Australians in general..."
This is why the Coalition is currently dominating Australian politics, albeit in a rather stealthy way, is it?
Personally, I can't recall ever associating the Coalition more with 'equality of opportunity', I'm afraid.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 16 July 2010 8:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim

I agree I have not heard much in the way of 'equality of opportunity' as being associated particularly with the coalition.

GY

I happen to agree with Grim, I am not "ganging up" with him. I found your article to be contentious in many areas, still do.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 17 July 2010 7:18:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the expression 'talking past each other' to seem particularly apt with respect to what has been this rather unbelievable A-grade online stoush. I have never been 'on the field' before during such an event. Unbelievable!

So I thought I had better re-read the article yet again (which I have now done several times) lest I, too, be guilty of talking past someone. As a consequence, one question has firmed up as being of potential significance. Graham Young stated in the article that *only about 10 per cent of people nominated it ["asylum-seekers"] as a top-of-mind "most important issue". (This is from a weighted sample of 599.)*. Was this response by around 10% of the sample the largest single-issue response elicited by the survey? If not, what other issue (or issues) elicited larger responses?

While waiting for an answer, given what has transpired in the battle over languagerules (and yes, I am trying to mimic in English a German compound word from the Nazi era which I cannot call to mind), I feel compelled to observe that the issue was described as being that of 'asylum-seekers' in the very first sentence of the Article. So far all quite politically correct, to those of us to whom PC might matter.

Given that Graham Young seems to be, if anything, MINIMIZING the importance of the asylum-seeker issue as a determinant of voting intention, his question as to why, DESPITE this, that "... when it ceases to be novel, [politicians] keep returning to [the issue of asylum-seekers].", becomes all that more intriguing.



Could it be that politicians, on the one hand bound by the bi-partisan deal that IMMIGRATION shall not be allowed to become an issue upon which community concern will be effectively represented in Parliament, see the issue of asylum-seekers as a means of escape from this 'deal'? And that Coalition politicians have so far escaped from it more effectively than Labor politicians to the latter's potential electoral disadvantage in what is a community-based, rather than politician-based, concern?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 17 July 2010 8:07:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest

1. Are the numbers of boat-people so large they present a danger to Australian autonomy?

A: No

2. Are the majority of boat-people found to be of dubious character?

A: No

3. Does the media play a significant part in promoting an inaccurate picture of the above?

A: Yes

4. Does Labor appear to lose in the public's eyes on the issue of refugees?

A: Yes

5. Does it benefit the Libs to play on Labor's PERCEIVED mismanagement of refugees?

A: Yes

6. Is the language surrounding boat-refugees a prime example of Orwellian doublespeak?

A: Yes. I present as my example Graham Young's article along with those of shock journalists like Andrew Bolt and the language used by the far-right members of Australian politics.

7. Should boat-refugees be an election issue?

A: No. There are far more urgent issues that require immediate action, such as a sustainable economy, infrastructure, population, environment, education, health and investment into new technologies.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 17 July 2010 9:33:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Forrest. Good to see someone actually reading the article. For most people the important issues are to do with the economy (Liberal voters) or health and education (Labor and Greens). I guess one problem with those issues is that they are hard to talk about because they are pretty abstract, whereas asylum seekers arriving in Northern Australia isn't abstract.

I don't think that the asylum seeker issue has anything to do with immigration. Both sides have pursued immigration policies that have favoured a racial mix, although the Liberals have tended more towards skilled migration and Labor towards family reunions, but that is a tendency, not an invariable.

Grim, the two forms of equality are one of the classic dividers between the left and right of politics so I'm surprised you've never thought of it before. To give a trivial example, it's the reason that the ALP is comfortable with positive discrimination to get more female politicians into parliament while the Liberals won't adopt the same practice.

As for the relative success of Liberal and Labor you just have to look at the last 110 years of government to see that non-Labor has been much more successful than Labor, and that latterly, when Labor has been successful, it has tended to be centrist Labor, as under the Hawke Keating government which was not particularly ideological.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 17 July 2010 9:39:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it looks like the election issue will be resolved before the end of August

Your choice

On the one hand the Liberals, who produced the successful Pacific Solution which stopped the illegal smuggling boats (along with a decade of economic and social stability and budget surplus)

On the other hand the Socialists who have produced

A couple of celebrity talk-fests (remember them - all wind and no substance)

The Henry review (where 2% adopted and 98% ignored - what a waste)
and the 2 % included the divisive "resources (cherry-picking) rape tax"
The East Timor humiliation and standoff
The School Halls scandal
The Insulation fires, deaths and scandal
The Dimulous packages (bribes)
Pointless spending on Middle class/income welfare
Greater regulation of everything
ETS backflip - and 300 civil servants doing nothing
Internet Censorship backflip
NBN Plan - well we are spending on a CEO so he must have a plan - not much substance

and doubtless they could top that list of incompetence and mediocrity

Socialism found its "high-point" in the poverty of the 1930

Unfortunately their thinking is frozen on those years

but they could drag the economy backward to those times, given another term in office.

as an election issue the range of socialist government failures is so comprehensive that their Immigration failure is just one of many to choose from.

But it the incumbent governments abject failure, in replacing a policy which achieved its goals, to replace it with a policy which encouraged the problem of illegal smuggler boats, should not be ignored or forgotten when casting ones vote for the next federal government

Personally, I prefer to move forward, instead of back to the high point of socialist psuedo-philosophy and failure
Posted by Stern, Saturday, 17 July 2010 10:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a previous post Severin spoke of me making her laugh and then she writes

'Does it benefit the Libs to play on Labor's PERCEIVED mismanagement of refugees?'

'Perceived'. If any there was a case of denial you have just read it. These boats are not coming in according to Severin. They are like gw (just in your imagination)
Posted by runner, Saturday, 17 July 2010 10:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*1. Are the numbers of boat-people so large they present a danger to Australian autonomy?*

The idea Severin, is to act before the horse has bolted. Open
borders is not an option.

The other question that arises, is fairness in relation to other
migrants. I tried to get a doctors appointment recently and was
told that the doctor might not be here the following week, due
to so far not having his visa renewed. It took a great deal of
lobbying from the townsfolk and others, just to keep the doctor
in town. Now this guy has been doing a wonderful job for years,
and has such trouble over a visa. Yet up north we let them stream
in easily by their thousands. That hardly makes much sense.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 17 July 2010 10:38:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Severin should have said:

1. Is the boat-people issue a danger to Australian autonomy?

A: Yes – we are continually being sermonised to by “refugee advocates” that we have no say—we have signed away our right of refusal.
If our signing of the UN covenant has so tied our hands –where is our autonym?

2. Are the majority of boat-people found to be of dubious character?

A: The operative word here is FOUND –few are found to be of dubious character --But then again, we would not know --- unless they were stupid enough to keep the mobile they had used to call al-Qaeda central.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/asylum-seeker-linked-to-al-qaida/story-e6frg6nf-1225891385695
or boasted about their past
http://www.isria.com/pages/16_July_2010_76.php
( and even then, a good lawyer is likely to find a way in)

3. Does the media play a significant part in promoting an inaccurate picture of the above?

A: Yes -it’s too open to manipulation by refugee advocates – the ABC in particular has been captured by the refugee lobby .Every time the ABC runs a refugee discussion, the panel,and call-ins seem pre-programmed.

4. Does Labor appear to lose in the public's eyes on the issue of refugees?

A: Yes

5. Does it benefit the Libs to play on Labor's PERCEIVED mismanagement of refugees?

A: Yes

6. Is the language surrounding boat-refugees a prime example of Orwellian doublespeak?

A: Yes. Look no further than OLO : Jennifer Wilson-- her opponents are all “racist” CJ Morgan-- his opponents are all “racists & rednecks” Bruce Haig –His opponents are all racists Severin -- ditto

7. Should boat-refugees be an election issue?

A: Yes . The Severins of OZ do not want it to be, because the Severins of the OZ never want the public to decide on such issues . To them it’s a moral issue above and beyond the ken of the majority.
It’s best left to a unelected elite to dictate.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 17 July 2010 10:49:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refugees will be an election issue. We have seen this already with attention to marginal seats where multicultural tensions run highest.

There is certainly a lot of noise for the small trickle of refugees that come to shore, when there are more pressing issues such as health reform, infrastructure etc.

Where are the radical thinkers who are not afraid to come out with reforms to the tertiary education sector, turn education off its corporatised path. We no longer have politicians who are believers but spinners (with some exceptions). The public want representatives who really represent, who are not afraid to do what is needed to make real improvements not clayton improvements - and who will listen.

I am all for strong border protection, but that can be accomplished while at the same time ensuring humane treatment of asylum seekers when they do arrive. Those refugees found to be unsuitable or where it is impossible to verify identity are refused - simple. Border protection is not only about refugees, but ecompasses sovereignty issues as regards to flouting national regulations and corporate laws at the behest of international corporate interests.

Will someone ever make a decision on this - if not put it to the people at the election via referendum with viable and humane options.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 17 July 2010 11:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's becoming almost a duty to post here!!

I'm disappointed Forrest that your attention to detail is so flawed. Flawed, in that you are repeatedly missing what I and Severin (who it now appears, is my 'unholy alliance'!).

At this point I suspect if I asked you the time,you would respond,- 'a week Tuesday'!!

Talking past one another is indeed an apt description;-for THIS.

Still you have support-I shall resist the one-two scenario,-it has not started yet..?

I have no intention of repeating again..and AGAIN what parts of GY's article that I questioned. Such questions are tantamount to lighting the blue touch paper!!

However, what is relevant is that you have raised the issue NOT of the original article, but of OUR flawed opinion of aspects of it!

Something that has been criticised by GY as being off topic when raised by us. (To hell with it!! I will now use the 'us' terminology. If accused of it, why not?). We are criticised;-you are complimented..

If you are not able to see what I'm saying-then I have badly misjudged your capabilities.
___________________________________

So? I have tackled my view of the same matter as you have done.

What will I now incur?

Or in writing this last bit, will I ensure against any further rancour?

What an utterly ludicrous series of events.

Perhaps further discussing should move to 'The OLO Approach' topic?
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 17 July 2010 1:09:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With regard to the phenomenon of posters 'seeing what they expect to see' in Articles or posts, I find myself having to make a correction to a claim I made, in my post of Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:53:21 AM, that "The term 'illegals' does indeed appear in both article and discussion, ...".

NO IT DOESN'T! The term 'illegals' NOWHERE appears in the article. My mistake.

The fact of which only adds to my perplexity as to why this contretemps with respect as to terminology, and claimed disingenuousness from in one case its NON-use (that of the term 'illegals'), ever arose. Severin's comment is particularly perplexing:

"Omitting the most common adjective uttered
by neo-conservatives (I don't include all
the Libs, having fond memories of Petro Georgiou)
and then vilifying those who deign to point out
this glaring omission?"

The weighted sample whose views were being reported upon was not a sample of "neo-conservatives". It was, presumably, a sample of ordinary voters, of whom less than 5% would be expected to have been members of ANY political party, let alone either of the Coalition parties. Why is it important that a sub-set of the respondents should have been labeled or identified as 'neo-conservatives'? I doubt five of that sub-set of 60 respondents would even be able to define what a neo-conservative is. How is it disingenuous in any way that they weren't so labeled?

However, lest in any way the significance of the use of the term 'illegals' by prominent alleged neo-conservatives in possibly influencing voter intention was to have been important, its usage in turn by respondents (by around 33% of the users of the term 'immigrant') was openly admitted to in GrahamY's post of Wednesday, 14 July 2010 at 2:39:53 PM. Where is any deception?

There is only room on this Forum for one pedant, Ginx and Severin, and thats me!

I am mortally offended you have bestowed that distinction upon another, nay, positively most negatively vilified.

Youse owe me an apology!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 17 July 2010 1:42:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican - Will someone ever make a decision on this - if not put it to the people at the election via referendum with viable and humane options.

Thought the previous Howard Liberal government had

There is a refugee quota which any of these illegal transients can apply for

Their preferred option is to jump around that inconvenience.

There was nothing inhumane about the Liberal Pacific solution

There is plenty wrong with economic opportunists trying to jump a queue intended for genuine refugees.

Vote labor for more incompetent stuff ups and the great new party game, “musical stab the prime minister”.

Noting that Hawke and Keating are stabbing away to packed pavements in Woop-Woop, Hawke doing a 4 year rendering of the forgotten years and Keating acting in his favourite part as the grim reaper

Or

Vote Liberal Coalition for commonsense and workable solutions
Posted by Stern, Saturday, 17 July 2010 5:37:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the much needed injection of levity FG!
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 18 July 2010 1:13:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia Gillard has her finger firmly on the pulse by again attacking 'Big Australia' and the record immigration targets and social disruption that go with it. She has entirely wrong-footed the LNP and Greens who were rather hoping to sit back and snipe about 'boat people':

" No 'top-gear' rush to population growth: Gillard
July 18, 2010 - 1:43PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has again voiced her opposition to a ‘big Australia’, saying it is the responsibility of government to take control of the nation’s future.

In her first full day on the campaign trail, Ms Gillard used a speech in Brisbane to expand on her vision for a sustainable approach to population growth.

One of Ms Gillard’s first actions after replacing Kevin Rudd was to reject his notion that Australia’s population was set to hit 36 million by 2050."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/no-topgear-rush-to-population-growth-gillard-20100718-10fqo.html

So far, Tony Abbott avoided any responsibility for deciding immigration numbers, making the Productivity Commission responsible for that(!). Mr Abbott's weasel words in reply were:

"What I completely reject is that we should just take for granted that we’re going to bring in 180,000 or 300,000, which are the current figures, year-in year-out come what may, until 2050 and beyond."
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 18 July 2010 3:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Graham, once again I have to say I find your statements to be a little 'peculiar'. Admittedly, I'm not the sharpest tool in Daddy's shed...
“...the two forms of equality are one of the classic dividers between the left and right of politics...”
I had to read this twice before I ventured the assumption that you were referring to a notion of 'labor equality' versus 'Liberal equality'. Correct? Considering the number of factions within both parties, some of which tend to overlap on various issues, I'm not sure I would propose “two forms of equality” as an immutable philosophical principle.
I also regard your claim of Liberal sovereignty 'across the ages' as a trifle disingenuous; particularly as both the major streams have been performing an 'allemande right' for the past 2 or 3 decades.
Indeed, by today's standards I would contend that 2 of the Liberals 'great' P.M.s, Bob Menzies and Malcolm Fraser, would be considered a little bit 'left wing'; particularly on this issue of immigration.
On the question of whether or not this will be an election issue, I have to say (again) I am finding it harder and harder to distinguish between the policies, or governing philosophies of the Liberal/Laborals. So, if it is an issue, I think it will be the issue of driving more humanitarians towards the Greens; particularly if Gillard is genuine in letting the discussion become less PC, -ie letting the 'rednecks' have their say.
Which, of course, they should.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 19 July 2010 9:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,
You are aware that the major parties have an agreement NOT to debate immigration matters?

The PM must be very close to breaking that deal as immigration is very much part of how much population we obtain.

Maybe the Opposition is reluctant to engage as it could be said they are breaking the deal.

I for one, would welcome the deal be broken as it is way past time the public became involved in population/immigration debate and it became an election issue.

For too long both major parties have pandered to big business who desire high immigration.

We have been treated like mushrooms for years.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 19 July 2010 9:53:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, it looks as though the 'mushroom factor' with discussing immigration might have been lifted.

‘Gillard, Abbott in race to keep population growth under control’

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/gillard-abbott-in-race-to-keep-population-growth-under-control/story-fn5rizbk-1225893658727
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 19 July 2010 10:09:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It looks like Julia is going to include a referendum with this election. Maybe that's a good thing, but lets have it a a number of issues not just "services for working families" Refugees, Asylum seekers, illegal entrants, abortion, Political donations, water management, single education for Australia, just to name a few. This then will tell the Pollies just Australians demand they fix & fix fast and in the way Australians want it fixed.

My solution to deal with illegal entrants is to make visitors to Australia tick a box on Australian Visa Application Form saying that they will not claim asylum when they arrive in Australia.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 19 July 2010 12:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
Don't know if they see it as breaking the deal 'not to debate immigration' but they are close to breaking it.

I would love them to start quoting numbers, but probably more important each party come up with a population policy. We then could see where each party is headed, if they don't renigue on it later.

I see the Greens as complete hypocrits on immigration. They claim to be in favour of low immigration on enviromental grounds, but happily hop into bed with Labor just to get some preferences.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy