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 > Let's not forget the SIEV-X > Comments

Let's not forget the SIEV-X : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 17/6/2008

'Hope', a documentary by Steve Thomas and Sue Brooks, is Amal Hassan Basry’s story - a survivor of the ill-fated SIEV-X.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
“Hope is not a film about right versus left, nor does it dwell on the opinions of politicians, commentators or advocates. There is no vitriolic debate about outsiders, no labelling, no intellectual argument.”

Maybe not, but the film (as described by the author) is certainly a political action, as is this ‘review’ – political comment thinly disguised with sentimentality.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 10:35:14 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
This article misses the main point. There is no hope. Peak Oil is shortly to be followed by Peak Food. The reason is that food can not be grown for less than the cost of production, which includes a large energy component. The result will be that when the requirements of the first world are taken from annual food production (including a significant amount for the production of essential biofuels), there will be insufficient food available to feed the rest of the world, even at the most basic level. The way that the population is expected to grow over the next few decades means that many millions will starve. Thank heavens we can feed ourselves, and that we have a sea boundary. It's going to be an interesting century.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 11:00:00 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
I'm not going to be baited by the predictable provocations in the first two published comments. I greatly welcome the making of this film and Susan Metcalfe's thoughtful and professional review. There is an equally favourable recent review of 'Hope' in 'Eureka Street'. I knew and respected Amal, but I had nothing to do with the making of this film. I look forward to seeing it when it screens at Dendy in Canberra - Canberrans should keep an eye on upcoming Dendy schedules following 19 June.
Tony Kevin
Posted by tonykevin 1, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 11:31:02 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 have followed the saga of SIEV-X since its inception.

Recently, I suggested to GetUp! that they make a submission to parliament for a review of the events. No response.

The senate enquiry conducted by John Faulkner lapsed.

What can we do to finally get an enquiry which determines what happened and why?
Posted by Seneca, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 12:10:14 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
Article on Siev X -> ignore bin.

Reason: Attempted capitalizing on sentimentality for base political motives.

The End.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 12:12:54 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
BOAZ: "Article on Siev X -> ignore bin. Reason: Attempted capitalizing on sentimentality for base political motives. The End."

Is this another example of BOAZ "working together towards truth"?

I for one will be keen to see the film when it is screening to see how the facts of the matter are assessed and treated.
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 12:41:16 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 that we don't make the same mistakes again.'"

Seems we don't need an enquiry ... someones already decided we are at fault by virtue of our mistakemaking.

I've been to sea in a small boat. Unknown lights of non navigation type are a very frequent event ... sensing them as trouble I've always avoided them.
I wonder whether SIEV-X had navigation lights?
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 12:46:04 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
"..capitalizing on sentimentality for base political motives"?
What motives? The election is over so what is there to gain politically now?

How about letting people die needlessly for base political motives?

There is much more to tell about this incident and it shouldn't be allowed to fade away into obscurity.

I for one would like to know more about what really happened. If there's nothing to hide, then why not get it all out and over with.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 1:19:49 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
Siev-x,
When are people going to accept that it was an Indonesian vessel, it left an Indoneasian port and it sank in Indonesian waters. The conpiriosy theorists even tried to link it to a search for an Australian customs vessel missing off Cape York, saying it was in same area. Yeah, 3000 kls away!

The best one can say is that it was unfortunate and those that sailed on her took no notice of warnings, from us, that the trip was dangerous. Not to mention the overloading.

There is no relevance to Australia. Ask the Indonesians for an inquiry. Perhaps we should also have an inquiry into the last train smash in India or into the responce to an earthquake in Chile. Should we inquire into the plane crash in Indonesia? That has as much relevance. It was not and is not our responsibility.

Sure, it was a sad event but inless the Indoneasians act then move on.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 9:24:06 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
I for one would really like to know what actually happened, particularly the level of awareness or otherwise by Australian surveillance services of the location and status of the SIEV-X when it sank. Unless some sort of formal inquiry is reconvened, there will always be suspicions that Australian authorities stood by and let hundreds of men, women and children drown when they might have been in a position to rescue them - whether or not that was the case.

The callous inhumanity that some people display about this potentially shameful episode is truly appalling. As for this:

<< Article on Siev X -> ignore bin.

Reason: Attempted capitalizing on sentimentality for base political motives.

The End. >>

A truly callous and shameful expression of the most odious version of Christianity I've ever encountered. Is it possible to award Boazy a "Gold Boazy" for his outstanding hypocrisy with respect to Christ's teachings?

Jesus: "Let them drown. It's political"

Yeah right.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 9:45:49 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
Keith your humanity is startling. What a pity that you are so far off the mark it is a sick joke. DIMA and the AFP knew about this boat, who owned and they tracked it for 6 weeks before it sailed.

They were well aware that it had left Indonesia, was overloaded and in danger of sinking. The AFP warned the defence department and the people were loaded at gun point by the INP with weapons given to them by the AFP.

Your heartless response reminds me that while Amal was clinging to that dead body to survive the AWB were giving hundreds of millions to Saddam Hussein.

Tell us all Keith, do you even have a sense of decency anywhere in your body.

I will be seeing the film on Thursday and I am recommending it to anyone.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 11:06:23 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
So Marilyn

'''"...'And that we don't make the same mistakes again.'"

Seems we don't need an enquiry ... someones already decided we are at fault by virtue of our mistakemaking.

I've been to sea in a small boat. Unknown lights of non navigation type are a very frequent event ... sensing them as trouble I've always avoided them.
I wonder whether SIEV-X had navigation lights?'''

Where in this comment is my heartlessness?

Marilyn you are sometimes extreme in your slandering of people who don't share your jaundiced view of everything Australian.

Your excusing the irresponsibilty of the so-called adults in putting themselves and their children in harms way by undertaking suspect and deceiptful means to attain their ends is absolutely disgraceful.

Where is your human decency? Why don't you condemn them? Where is the decency in excusing that and blaming me and Australia for their own stupidity?

It seems you are another of those that doesn't need an enquiry. Australia to you is not just guilty of mistakemaking but complicit in the boarding, overcrowding and sinking of an unseaworthy craft.

Grow up Marilyn ...
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 8:56:17 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 think that some people have short memories or don’t know what the background to this story is.

The unresolved issues include –
1. Did our Government have agents working in Indonesia that reported on each refugee boat that was leaving for our shores?
2. Was the SIEV-X deliberately sabotaged before it sailed?
3. Did the SIEV-X actually sink in International waters and not on Indonesian waters as reported in some media?
4. Was one of our surveillance vessels shadowing the SIEV-X, aware of the situation but failed to offer assistance. If so, on whose instruction?

Quite simple questions yet resulted in deliberate obstruction and avoidance during the Senate enquiry, as if there was something to hide.

Remember that this was the Government that claimed it knew “absolutely nothing” about ex-military personnel training to be dock workers in Dubai and failed to tell the truth about the kids overboard after they were made aware of it (“better not see the video then”).
They also vilified and scapegoated one of their own intelligence personnel when he contradicted the American version of the Iraq WMD situation.

If it turns out that politicians allowed 353 people to drown for their own political purposes, then I think we are entitled to know.

I would have thought that they would have been the very first ones to want this issue resolved.

Political opportunism is one thing, but this may be something else entirely and it's time it was concluded - one way or another.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 10:16:23 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
Sounds like it is the sort of movie that could only be balanced by showing the hardship of people on waiting lists who are prepared to come here legally. I know of family members who have suffered horrendously in South Africa and Sri Lanka. I wonder sometimes if they would be better risking their lives in order to gain the sympathy of many or should they just wait for their applications to be processed?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 11:19:50 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
Runner, in Australian law the people on the boat did come here quite legally so will you stop that whine about this nonsense. Ruddock made it up and to claim that the 353 people on this boat should have waited in Iraq for 10 years or more is an obscenity.

If they had broken any law in the world sunshine they would have been charged for it.

Now perhaps you are unaware that Amal died of breast cancer largely because after the horror of seeing her family members killed by Saddam, by nearly drowning, by being in Indonesia away from her husband and not being allowed any medical care and then no care or help in Australia.

She survived Saddam, she could not survive the hell of us. Why don't you go and see the movie and learn something and then think about this. Those people you claim are waiting on the non-exitent "legal" queue will die of old age before they can come here because under the "legal" method they already have protection in a third country.

It was and is an hoax to continue to protest otherwise.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 2:26:02 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
Quite wrong Marilyn.

International law states catagorically refugees must seek refuge and be granted refuge in the first state they arrive in that can give them, as you say, protection. It is illegal for refugees to transit safe havens in order to reach third or other countries.

Ruddock didn't make that up. It is also the basis of the ongoing agreements and co-operation between Australia and Indonesia. That more than anything has stopped people smuggling and illegal entry into Australia ... by boat.

As for them remaining in Iraq ... well that is plainly hysterical nonsense. They could have had refuge in any country between here and Iraq. Notably Iran.

Tell me Marilyn, if we are so much hell why did her husband, she and her family want to live among us?

As for charging the 353 victims ... are you unhinged?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 4:38:20 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
From the article” But the SIEV-X was in fact a small and unsafe boat, without adequate facilities or life jackets, and overloaded with four times the number of passengers it was built to carry. It is only surprising that the boat was able to stay afloat at all in the rough seas and that anyone was able to survive when the vessel finally went under.”

Volenti non fit injuria

As for mistakes, the “mistake” was with those people who were attempting to enter Australia by illegal means on a foreign owned boat (per the article) unsuited to the task.

Sentimentality makes for warm feelings of “international kinship” when no “reason” exists.

Runner, To your last post, let it no longer be said that I always disagree with you. Much as CJ Morgan had a cathartic moment recently, in agreeing with me, I now agree with you.

Marilyn Shepherd, since the Siev-X never made it to Aussie shores, the legal issue is mute.

However, since the deliberate intention of Siev-X was to not declare its presence and entry to Australia through the prescribed manner requiring AQIS, migration and customs inspection, their intention was to gain entry to Australia ILLEGALLY.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 4:39:44 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
Col Rouge: << Much as CJ Morgan had a cathartic moment recently, in agreeing with me, I now agree with you. >>

It was hardly cathartic, Col. More like unexpectedly seeing an uncouth acquaintance at an art exhibition, and realising they have some redeeming features after all.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 8:13:09 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
Obviously a must see film. No matter on which side of the political fence you sit.

The remarks of some posters made feel naseous, but then I remembered that they speak from the comfort and security of being Australian and living here without any personal experience whatsoever of war or political terror. Or indeed, the remotest possibility of ever experiencing this.

You have no idea, or the imagination, what it is like to live with relentless terror. If you did, you would know that what seems irrational to you here in Australia might appear to be the most logical thing to do when fleeing with your children away from a situation through a hostile 'host' country. The things that you see briefly on the news or in interesting exposes in current affair programmes is the daily reality year in and year out for some people.

We are not removed or can shield ourselves from the consequences, such as displaced people just because we want to. We are actively involved.

It is not logical to demand isolation politics in one area and yet expect to reap the economic rewards from a global world.

Australia, like other Western countries, are not like Iran, Indonesia, Sudan, Pakistan, or any of those third world countries that bear the brunt of the vast majority of refugees. There is hope for a future here, and peace.

Just to say that we are an open democratic society where our government is held accountable is not enough. It must be seen to be so. We meddle and exert pressure in other nations, that requires a certain moral authority.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 9:42:32 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 that some believe that it was entirely the victims' own fault and they just got what they deserved.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 11:09:40 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
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE
ADDITIONAL BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 FEBRUARY 2008
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(29) Output 1.6: Offshore Asylum Seeker Management
Senator Nettle (L&CA 97) asked:
There used to be a table that we got as part of questions on notice—I think Senator Ludwig used to ask for it—about the cost of processing detainees at the different detention centres. Is it possible to get an update of that table?
Answer:
The cost of processing asylum seekers in Nauru and Manus Province, PNG, from 2001 to 31 December 2007 was $305 million, including departmental costs in Australia.
The costs, in millions of dollars for each centre by years are contained in the following table:
CENTRE
YEAR
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
1 Jul 07 -31 Dec 07
TOTAL
NAURU
48.5
45.0
33.6
34.4
26.4
29.7
15.4
233
MANUS
29.4
20.6
6.2
1.8
2.4
1.4
0.4
62.2
NATIONAL OFFICE CO-ORD
2.4
2.3
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
9.8
TOTAL
80.3
67.9
41.3
37.5
29.8
32.1
16.1
305

Your taxes at work. Remember that this $305 million is only what DIMA cost. Then we had the millions in bribes to Nauru and Manus Island and the $350 million to the international organisation for migration.

During those years we spent $26 million one year to keep two Iraqis on Nauru and $6.2 million for one Palestinian on Manus Island.

To put all this into perspective for the ranters and haters we sent a lousy $50 million to the UNHCR to help the other 21 million refugees - that means we spent about $1 million each for the 1500 people to go to the Pacific islands and then bring them back here while we donated $2.30 per person per year to survive in places like Sri Lanka.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 19 June 2008 3:08:09 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
Briefly tonykevin1, I concur in general with your fears of a redneck backlash, but think plerdsus was just making a general comment about immanent forces that are driving the mess that seiv X is a nasty symptom of.
re Col
Rouges comments, wasn't the reason the boat was overloaded due to reasons beyond the control of the victims, as mentioned by several posters. Was the senate inquiry fudged? Would it have been fudged if there was nothing to hide?
I was one who bought the queue jumper line back then, but ever since then inconvenient snippets keep turning up that really hint at something not just careless but egregious.
The Dr Haneef case was the last in a long line of incidents indicating just how untrustworthy the Howard government was when it came to being honest about controversial situations going back to Webb Dock.
Posted by paul walter, Thursday, 19 June 2008 8:23:26 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
WEll I have now seen the film. I cried for about 105 of the 110 minutes as I watched the enormous grief and courage of an amazingly gutsy woman dying of cancer who wanted to tell us her story. She was not a criminal, nor a queue jumper, nor any of the other vile things the Col Rouge's of this world choose to think.

It was wonderful during the film to discover Sondous Ismael who lost all those beautiful little girls is now an Australian with three little children. Najah and her sister Zena whom I had met in Adelaide made an appearance and their grief at the loss of another sister, a brother and Najah's baby boy was still palpable and made me want to hug them on the screen.

Faris Khadem lost his wife and little girl while his mother and son were locked in Woomera and is remarried and an Australian.

One of the most frightening things was Amal being denied entry to Indonesia where she was flying to try and get some answers - the Indonesian embassy here issued her a legal visa but she was denied entry? Was it because the main architect of Operation Relex is now the ambassador in Jakarta? Amal was allowed into Bangkok airport and Amman, Jordan and Tehran, Iran. Why not Indonesia?

The most devastating part of the film was the film maker dropping hundreds of flowers into the water at the port the boat left from.

For the haters I say this - these people are now Australian citizens and I for one demand you treat them with respect. They have suffered more than enough.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 20 June 2008 2:03:08 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
We tend to get two diametrically opposed views on this topic.

The fact is that in any group of refugees, there are those who are leaving their home country on the pretence of being refugees, but who are really doing it for economic reasons; and those who really are fleeing for genuine humanitarian reasons. The former are queue jumpers and should be put back in the rightful queue, but the latter should be treated in a way that is sympathetic to their situation. While both types are technically coming here illegally, the Department of Immigration should discriminate between the two, something it used to do, but seemingly not so much any more.

On another point, how is it that economic migrants do not have their fair share (going by the record numbers coming into our country) of undesirables but refugees do? There is definitely some victimisation of migrants going on based on whether or not they are economically "useful". As usual, the human side is monstered by greed and the need to fuel the economy.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 20 June 2008 1:23:31 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
Ah Rob, but who are we to conclude that some poor person from Afghanistan who wants an education for their kids that Afghanistan will never give them deserves to be written off as an "economic" migrant?

The strange thing is that the only 'queue" jumpers are those encouraged by the Federal government to jump that queue because they have buckets of cash and educational standards that we might want.

Amal was an experienced banker before Saddam killed all the adult men in her family, yet we denied her.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 20 June 2008 2:23:07 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
"Ah Rob, but who are we to conclude that some poor person from Afghanistan who wants an education for their kids that Afghanistan will never give them deserves to be written off as an "economic" migrant?"

Marilyn, this is the kind of "creeping argument" that your critics will jump on straight away and say is the thin edge of the wedge. Once you go down that road, where do you stop? I'm sure there are millions of Tibetans, Mongols, Chinese etc who'd also like to settle in Australia who just haven't thought of it yet. You do have to draw the line somewhere.

All the same, the hypocrisy is pretty thick, I think, when economic migrants can teem through the "front door" with the arms of industry openly extended to them. Border security? Who said border security?
Posted by RobP, Friday, 20 June 2008 2:43:55 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
The Howard government’s policies were aimed not at refugees per se but to counter people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers. Secondary movement asylum seekers are asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in affluent Western countries. Almost all secondary movement asylum seekers arrived without identity papers or travel documents, destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence a very time consuming, difficult and costly task.

Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya is one of the largest refugee camps in the world with more than 80,000 refugees from nine different countries and dozens of different ethnic groups. The refugees there are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. Life is particularly harsh for single vulnerable women who have nobody to protect them. Australian’s refugee resettlerment program has a visa category for “Women at Risk” whereby women in such refugee camps can be resettled in Australia, virtually their only chance of escaping their horrific situations.

For a time until people smuggling was effectively halted Australia’s refugee resettlement program had to be suspended as all resettlement places were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers. The obvious question is why refugees in camps such as Kakuma did not themselves become secondary movement asylum seekers and travel around the world to seek refuge in affluent western countries. The unfortunate reality is that most of the world’s refugees live in abject poverty, not having the $5,000 to $10,000 per person required to pay people smugglers.

As Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock visited refugee camps in Africa and Asia and to his credit worked diligently to halt people smuggling and the influx of secondary movement asylum seekers, so that resettlement was returned to being on the basis of need rather than financial ability to pay people smugglers.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 20 June 2008 3:14:53 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
re Rob/Marilyn, didn't the government (eventually) end up finding a massive majority of boat people circa 2000- 2003 were in fact genuine, as claimed by people like the film makers and Marilyn herself, who ended up meeting many refugees personally and hearing their stories (eg Amal).
What was Ruddock on about then, when he did his "queue jumper" beat up?
Contempt prior to investigation to avoid a tricky political situation for howard?
Sounds familiar, that!
Posted by paul walter, Friday, 20 June 2008 3:58:29 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
CJ Morgan “More like unexpectedly seeing an uncouth acquaintance at an art exhibition, and realising they have some redeeming features after all.”

That’s the problem when you judge people, relying on your own ignorance. Personally I would find a redeeming quality the last thing to expect in you.

Paul walter “wasn't the reason the boat was overloaded due to reasons beyond the control of the victims”

Only if they were forced onto the vessel.

As I said before “volenti non fit injuria”

Marilyn Shepherd ”amazingly gutsy woman dying of cancer”

bugger all, no point in coming to Australia to get treatment, unless she was prepared to pay. Medicare does not even extend to family reunion migrant cases where the reunion party is beyond working age.

“She was not a criminal, nor a queue jumper, nor any of the other vile things the Col Rouge's of this world choose to think.”

I made no suggestion to her status, except, she cannot be separated from the actions of the rest of the boat passengers and crew who were intent on circumventing Australian migration, customs and quarantine laws.

Really Marilyn. “sentimentality” will get you no where, it is the dross of the debating forums.

And descent to name calling re “For the haters I say this” says more about your own lack of emotional stability than anything about those you address it to (which I assume includes me).

RobP “We tend to get two diametrically opposed views on this topic.”

I have no problem with refugees who follow due process and act responsibly. I do have problems with people who try to circumvent the processes and disciplines which other folk are prepared to wait in line for. The queue jumpers do not deserve to be treated with any favour simply because they jumped the queue, quite the opposite.

The furphy about being in harms way in their country of origin does not cut it either because all these “refugees” moved out of “harms way” before they got to Australia.

I waited in line to migrate too.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 21 June 2008 6:01:17 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
Col I don't care if you waited in some stupid line for approval, the point is you were migrating, Amal and the thousands of others were fleeing for their lives. She didn't come to Australia for cancer treatment you brainless thug, she was diagnosed after she had been here for a year and died a few years later.

And Franklin. Dear god in heaven. How many times do we have to read your lunatic drivel about secondary movement - there is no such thing in the refugee world. You have to keep moving until there is somewhere safe but every time there is a story about a refugee you bob up with this tripe.

The refugee convention actually covers what you call secondary movement by article 1D which states people are not entitled to protection if they have protection in another country. Not one refugee has ever been refused in Australia because of that clause so go away.

As for this ongoing hatred some of you display - the people you now hate are Australian citizens with the same rights as you so I hope they sue you for libel.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Saturday, 21 June 2008 9:58:16 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 Col, no matter how many times you babble about processes and so on, you are wrong. It is the process to be in Australia to apply for protection under the refugee convention.

Indeed the law says you have to be in Australia anyway you can and article 31 of the convention says that travelling without documents is not illegal and arriving without notice is also not illegal.

Have a look at Iraq and Afghanistan you clown or go back to where ever you came from because we have enough inbred rednecks without importing the likes of you.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Saturday, 21 June 2008 10:01:26 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
Marilyn Shepherd ” Col I don't care if you waited in some stupid line for approval, the point is you were migrating,”

Obviously, you have no respect for other people who 'do the right thing' and showing respect for their fellows, it is just “all about Marilyn”

“Amal and the thousands of others were fleeing for their lives.”

and were no longer in 'imminent danger', having made it to Indonesia, from where they sailed.

“As for this ongoing hatred some of you display”

I demand you show where I have used words of hatred toward refugees in any of my posts or be proved a LIAR.

I have only expressed a desire to ensure those who display complete disregard to the sovereignty of Australia do not benefit from their disrespect in acquiring priority over those who have waited, in line, out of respect for our sovereign entry processes.

Your continual attempts to justify the outrages and contempt which those who try to land without approved or appropriate authorization show that you are simply a malignant influence (like your friends cancer), working against civil order and reason.

Re “you brainless thug.” . . .

“you clown or go back to where ever you came from because we have enough inbred rednecks without importing the likes of you.”

It seems to me it is an individual persons right to choose to be clowns, inbred rednecks or brainless thugs ( ie ‘the likes of me’).

I could take you up on returning from whence I came, take my business off shore, making sure the riffraff and swill humpers do not benefit from my tax contributions to the state.

On the other hand, I think I will stay, content in the knowledge, my legal right to be here is significantly more annoying to a arrogant, intolerant, skank, like you.

I guess the reason you like to mix with the near destitute, it gives you opportunity to at least feel superior, a satisfaction obviously denied you when dealing with anyone who is not at the bottom of the heap (hidden motives drive many wannabes).
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 22 June 2008 2:00:00 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 have no problem with refugees who follow due process and act responsibly."

Col, this is eye-of-the-beholder stuff.

From the point of view of a person in another country who is suffering some political victimisation say, his idea of acting responsibly might be to get himself and his family out of harm's way. A very libertarian thing to do, I'm sure you will agree. Provided he is genuinely in need, I think this is fair enough. And the mere fact that getting out of harm's way means moving fast, there is often little or no chance of seamlessly meshing in with a foreign country's Migration Act. The refugees can't just go to their local Australian Embassy down the road, or check out travel advisories on the web and leisurely plan their strategy like one can from English-speaking countries. To them, getting a "people smuggler" to take them on a boat is the same as you or me catching a taxi - it is only a means for getting from point A to B.
Posted by RobP, Sunday, 22 June 2008 2:50:37 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
RobP “Col, this is eye-of-the-beholder stuff.”

I can see fine,

If I wanted to move somewhere, I would do everything in my power to assure my successful acceptance in that destination.

That would START with making sure I complied with the entry requirements of that destination, not by trying to circumvent them.

Access to a high commission would be my problem to deal with and overcome, not a suitable or valid excuse for me to flout the migration regulations of Australia.

Not one of the so called “refugees” is coming directly from a “country of imminent danger”. All had moved through several other nation states where the were, as you say, “out of harms way” and thus in a better position than those refugees still in their country of “harm”.

Finally, the majority of people who qualify as refugees do respect our laws and apply for migration using whatever resources they can muster and do not try to jump the necessary queue which allows them consideration for legitimate entry to Australia.

I see the SIEV-X queue jumpers as usurping the entitlement of the refugees who wait, in queues, to fair consideration.

I have met several Zimbabweans who have waited and respected our laws to qualify to migrate (mostly black Zimbabweans, the majority of whites were forced out by the bastard Mugabe by 1985, a lot going back to UK, many to SA and even a few coming to Australia)

Whilst I had family here in Australia, I was a “self-sponsoring migrant” but even then, had to wait 7 years before my work skill were in demand. I did not try to jump the queue. I respected Australian expectations and applied only when I believed I would be accepted.

All the sentimental blackmail in the world will never change “usurper of other peoples rights and ignorer of Australian Sovereignty” into “acceptable migrant”.

Your argument fails because it is based on sentimentality, lacks natural justice (the natural justice due to those refugees who patiently wait in queues around the world) only to pander and reward the abuses inflicted by queue jumpers.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 22 June 2008 7:48:32 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
Col Rouge,
Believe me, you are wasting your time trying to apply valid and reasonable argument to this debate. I have encounted MS and her cronies before and they are impervious to reason.

Frankly, I think that those adults that took their children on the Siev-X, and other overloaded and unsafe boats, should be charged with putting the children in danger. Some people on the Siev-x realised the danger and demanded to be put off, and were, the rest sailed to their fate. If those that were rescued by the Tampa were taken back to Indonesia, as intended before they were hyjacked, the tragety of the Siev-x may never have occured. But your opponants are oblivious to that or any reasonable view.

Oh well, good luck.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 22 June 2008 7:56:02 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
Back for a brief moment.. not about the article, but to mention that I have very little faith in 'government'... of any flavor, and that things go on.. dirty grubby soiled and disgusting things... on all sides... THAT's why I see no value in doing anything other than ignorning this particular issue relative to the many many other far more pressing ones.

Issues like this, will only be solved when people operate from honest and principled motives.

Unfortunately, when it comes to border control, international relations, national security, many things become blurred and muddy, and competing interests are at play.

So.. as it was stated (fictionally) in the move "Shooter" the bad Senator said "Yes, I sacrificed a whole village..but it gave stability to the whole region"....

Those kind of trade offs come into play and no amount of legal or moralizing or sentimental quackery will change the level of difficulty in dealing with them.

Of one thing we may be sure.. SOMEone will have their nose out of joint no matter WHAT is done.

Me.. not knowing enough about this to make judgements..and very cynical about others 'sources'.. leaves me ignoring it.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 22 June 2008 8:27:35 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
Many in this forum and others have been told over and over again that Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convnetion, that they send people back to danger or lock them up in hell holes where they have to pay bribes to get out.

The only "authorities" in the UNHCR who might be in Indonesia are paid for by us, the housing is paid for by us, there is no safety in Indonesia for refugees and never has been.

That is why the people had to keep moving on to Australia.

Now I don't know if you really mean that people deserve to drown, or be ship wrecked or locked up because of what you percieve as process but Australian law says that anyone is allowed to turn up in Australia from anywhere in the world, without papers, and ask for refugee protection.

Anything else you want to babble on about and spew out hatred about is deranged, cruel and ugly and I want you to rack off back to where you came from.

Kapeesh?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Sunday, 22 June 2008 10:30:54 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
Waiting at home for the mailman to deliver advice on an application for immigration is not quite the same as living anonymously in a makeshift tent city with tens of thousands of others.

An immigrant is not necessarily a refugee.

How far would YOU go to escape such an existence?
Posted by rache, Monday, 23 June 2008 8:54:45 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
"Your argument fails because it is based on sentimentality, lacks natural justice (the natural justice due to those refugees who patiently wait in queues around the world) only to pander and reward the abuses inflicted by queue jumpers."

In response to that, may I say Col, that, when boiled right down, your argument is based on Western supremacy - the attitude that, as I am bigger and stronger that you, I win.

I also notice that you only play the libertarian card when you, and similarly minded people, benefit from it.

As is obvious to anyone who has been in a desperate situation, one can't just navel-gaze and do things in a predictable manner. One sometimes has to show resourcefulness - in fact, isn't this the sort of trait you laud? Isn't defending the right to one's liberty from squalor and oppression the ultimate form of libertarianism?
Posted by RobP, Monday, 23 June 2008 10:01:25 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
According to a UNHCR report last week less than 1 percent of
the world’s refugees are resettled by third countries. That leaves more than 99 percent of refugees without a permanent and safe home for themselves or their children. While the global situation for refugees remains so hopeless we will of course continue to see people resorting to desperate measures to find safe and peaceful lives. The reality is that most people will die waiting patiently for a resettlement place.

According to UNHCR, at the end of 2007 there were '11.4 million refugees outside their countries and 26 million others displaced internally by conflict or persecution ... contributing to an unprecedented number of uprooted people under the care of the UN refugee agency.'

UNHCR also estimate that there are around 12 million stateless people worldwide.

So if people here have a problem with refugees arriving by boat it might be useful if they work on finding solutions for the lack of resettlement options around the world.

Anyone supporting refugees in Australia is of course aware of those people waiting for resettlement in camps and other unsafe situations. Most refugees I deal with in Australia live regularly with news of the death of relatives back in their homelands or in neighboring camps. Many people working with refugees are in contact with people in those situations in other countries, as well as with people who have managed to get out and find a way to Australia.

The very negative comments about refugees on this forum indicate that not many people here are atually dealing with refugees every day or understand what they have been through.
Susan Metcalfe
Posted by Susan M, Monday, 23 June 2008 10:56:27 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
Banjo “I have encounted MS and her cronies before and they are impervious to reason.”

I too am impervious to the sentimental bulldust and faux-compassion they cloak themselves in, thanks Banjo (and thanks for the ‘good luck’ tag)

RobP “In response to that, may I say Col, that, when boiled right down, your argument is based on Western supremacy - the attitude that, as I am bigger and stronger that you, I win.”

No, despite what is obviously your skewed perception of my values and the matter at hand, I have stated and endeavour to play the “we have laws which should be applied blindly to all” argument.

“I also notice that you only play the libertarian card when you, and similarly minded people, benefit from it.”

Really?

So that explains my view on abortion?

Which I can assure you, as a male, I am never going to “benefit” from.

“Isn't defending the right to one's liberty from squalor and oppression the ultimate form of libertarianism?”

Not when "Pnes Right" is demanded with total disregard and hubris toward the people, community and country I wish to join (Good aspirations never come forth from bad acts).

You are trying to deflect reasoning and turning your argument into a mild attack on my character.

I answered your argument objectively, I suggest you respond in kind, rather than sinking into Marilyn’s cesspool.

Marilyn Shepherd “Anything else you want to babble on about and spew out hatred about is deranged, cruel and ugly and I want you to rack off back to where you came from.”

The only one ‘spewing hatred” is you. I imagine you sat at your computer, foam dripping from your mouth, like a rabid dog ready to tear the throat out of anyone who counters your maniacal opinion.

Please read what you wrote and ponder, does your post represent the least compelling of any argument which could ever be presented?

Keep it up Marilyn, Noel Coward sang a song about us….

“Mad Dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun”
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 23 June 2008 6:07:58 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
Col, refugees are human beings in dreadful circumstances and your hatred for them is beneath contempt.

Go away, go back to another country that loves bigots and thugs like you.

Go on. Piss off. If your family had been murdered, if Saddam Hussein was the leader of the government and you were forced to flee what would you do?

You applied to come here from a safe country. So did millions of others. Amal did not have such a luxury and I find your hatred for a woman who died is repulsive.

And if Cocker sang a song just for me aren't I lucky but I am not a mad dog nor and Englishman. I presume you are both.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 23 June 2008 9:05:44 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
Well Col, I can't see any point in arguing. We couldn't be any more different if we tried. Of course there is some truth in your argument, but it isn't the only one.

In my opinion, a country as wealthy as ours should open its doors to people who aren't doing so well. I think that is a compassionate thing to do - and not faux compassion at all - so long as we keep our migration intake sustainable and in balance (i.e. fair to the people who are already here in Australia).

BTW, I happen to think that abortion is not a good idea, as you might remember from our earlier encounters. It's much better for all concerned if people steer away from the practice altogether in my view.
Posted by RobP, Monday, 23 June 2008 9:51:52 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
"I have seen malignant trolls like you throw your
weight around web sites in the past."

Have a good look in the mirror, Col. You are every bit as bad as what you accuse others of.
Posted by RobP, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 11:01:08 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
Secondary movement asylum seekers are asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in affluent Western countries. To enable payment of people smugglers secondary movement asylum seekers have by necessity access to considerable financial resources as compared to the majority of the world’s refugees.

The sinking of SIEV X was indeed a tragic occurrence, and the sinking in itself was a powerful statement against the criminality of the people smuggling. The Howard government is to be congratulated for working diligently towards ending people smuggling.

It is instructive to look at the financial aspects of people smuggling. The media reported that onboard SIEV X was a family group of twenty three members, only one of whom survived. Leaving aside the tragedy (and indeed it was a tragedy), with payment to people smugglers of $5,000 to $10,000 per person, the family group would have needed a total amount in the range of $105,000 to $210,000 for payment of the people smugglers.

For some perspective of the amount of $115,000 to $230,000 it needs to be realized that oil poor middle eastern countries have per capita incomes in the range of $500 to $1,000. For further perspective, a government clerk in Saddam’s Iraq received a salary of around $30 per month (source: ABC’s 7:30 Report). So, it can be seen that it is not asylum seekers escaping with only the clothes on their backs who can become secondary movement asylum seekers, only those with substantial financial resources.

The Australian government, by necessity, is required to look at the bigger picture in regard to asylum seeker and refugee policies. Could it be logically and reasonably argued that a family group of secondary movement asylum seekers with financial resources of $100,000 to $200,000 travelling from countries of per capita income of $500 to $1,000 should take precedence for resettlement over those in more dire need, for example, single women and their dependant children in refugee camps such as Kakuma in Kenya ??
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 12:16:26 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’d like to know where the $5000 to $10,000 figure allegedly paid by boat refugees came from.

At those sorts of figures, the 421 passengers on board SIEV-X would have paid between $2 and 4 million – which hardly calls for the use of leaky boats. Most refugees with such resources buy fake passports and (still) come by air.

I believe that some villages pool their resources to sponsor some of their youngest to leave and some remaining families take out loans to finance others but these figures suggest boat people must all be brain surgeons or lawyers to be able to afford such passage.

Translating this to an average Australian annual income of $50K would mean that we would have to pay somewhere between half a million to a million dollars EACH to get the same transport opportunity.

Secondary movement also incorrectly implies that all those countries they pass through are all signatories to the UN Refugee Convention.

http://www.sievx.com has much more info for those who really want to know.
.
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 4:02:53 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
The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need.

Another problem is verification of the stories of persecution of secondary movement asylum seekers. DIMIA reported that 80% of secondary movement asylum seekers arrived in Australia without documentation. This was encouraged by people smugglers to make verification a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. It also made extremely difficult the return to countries of residence of failed asylum seekers.

In July 2001 a boat departed from Cambodia for Australia with 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board, who were believed to have paid between $US5,000 and $US10,000 per person for their journey (note: average per capita income of Afghanistan is $400 per year).

The boat was intercepted and most were found carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers could have applied to the UNHCR for asylum in Cambodia which is a signatory to the relevant UN conventions. Only after interception did many of the group apply for asylum.

Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the remainder were returned to their countries of origin. However, if this group of secondary movement asylum seekers would have destroyed their documents en route and then reached Australia, perhaps most would have been granted protection in Australia due to the difficulty in establishing their identities and disproving their almost unverifiable stories of persecution.

The destruction of documentation occurred during the rescue of secondary movement asylum seekers by the Tampa. The first mate of the Tampa, Christian Malhaus, testified in a Western Australian court during a people smuggling case that during the rescue he actually saw asylum seekers throw their documentation overboard before boarding, thus making the establishment of identities and disproving of stories of persecution very difficult.

Perhaps the above are indications that it is inadvisable for Australia’s refugee program to be based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:09:10 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
Franklin opens (opines) with : "The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks (sic) is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need."

Since his opening premise is factually wrong, the rest of his contribution is worthless. Australia’s refugee program is far from being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

The authoritative figures are readily available at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

Between January 2002 and April 2006, fewer than 250 unauthorised boat people have arrived in Australia (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/75processing.htm)

Even assuming that all of these were smuggled in, that's a minuscule proportion of all refugees (an average of 62 a year out of an average of 13,000 a year for refugees overall).

The vast majority of Australia's refugees are referred to Australia by the UNHCR (6,003 in 2006-7) or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program (5,183 in 2006-7). These two categories are clearly people assessed by experts to be in need and Australia grants them permanent settlement visas.

Those who arrive in Australia outside those two categories are at best granted only Temporary Protection Visas and at worst are detained until their status can be verified and their need assessed. Some are eventually deported. In 2006-07 only 305 onshore Temporary Protection Visas and 1,396 Permanent Protection Visas were granted.

Why don't people check the readily available facts before they repeat the trash that passes as opinion about the refugee program?
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 2:03:22 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
Another major problem with Australia’s refugee program when it was captive to people smugglers and secondary movement asylum seekers (ie: prior to 2001) was the opportunity afforded to economic migrants to pose as asylum seekers and thus gain admittance to an affluent western country.

It needs to be acknowledged that people leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic reasons as well as for political reasons. By posing as asylum seekers the 1951 Refugee Convention provides them with an opportunity to gain admittance to the West and the advantages of living in first world countries.

Many developing countries haven’t been able to provide basic freedoms, growth and decent living standards, but have developed enough for the emergence of a relatively well-educated middle class who see the West on television and the internet and yearn for the opportunities they see there.

Global criminal syndicates of people smugglers target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia.

The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported the existence of coaching schools located in the Pakistan/Afghan border region where Pakistani clients of people smugglers would spend a few months preparing for DIMIA interviews.

The Pakistanis were provided with information on common food items, customs and events in Afghan history. People smugglers advised clients to learn about farming techniques, language, and to pretend to be illiterate to evade in-depth questioning.

The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported that the people smugglers in Pakistan used copies of Australian interview tapes and information from people released from detention centres, and were well informed about processes used to detect Pakistanis posing as Afghanis.

The Pakistanis would claim to be Afghan farmers and recount tales of being taken to fight for the Taliban. Identity checks on suspected Pakistanis were complicated by the use of false names and disposal of identity documents prior to arrival in Australia.

It was surely inadvisable to have allowed Australia’s refugee program to be captive to people smugglers prior to 2001.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 27 June 2008 11:50:50 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
Having been shown to be right off beam with his wild assertion that Australia’s refugee program is based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers, Franklin now takes another tack - which is equally without any factual basis. Namely that affluent migrants pose as asylum seekers to gain admission to Australia.

But, to cover his lack of relevant evidence, and in the face of opposing evidence, Franklin initially tells us that this worked in Australia up to 2001 when Mr Howard closed that loophole.

Then he brings us up to the present day where this practice is in operation again - apparently Mr Howard didn't fix it after all.

"Global criminal syndicates of people smugglers," he tells us, "target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia".

The evidence? The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence allegedly found coaching schools in the Pakistan/Afghan border region where Pakistani clients of people smugglers would spend months preparing for DIMIA interviews.

A nice story Mr Franklin. Would you care to give us its source, its date and its extent - number of coaching schools, number of students, effectiveness of their coaching, etc?

But if - as you seem to imply - this was all before 2001, what's your point in raising it again now?
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 27 June 2008 1:46:24 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
Spikey seems to have mistakenly taken my comments on secondary movement asylum seekers out of the correct time frame. All of my comments were obviously not in regard to Australia’s present day refugee program, but in regard to the refugee program as it was in the few years before people smuggling was halted by the Howard government.

For Spikeys greater understanding, perhaps the first paragraph should read as following:

“The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers prior to the halting of people smuggling was selection became based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need”.

As Spikey noted, the vast majority of Australia's refugees are NOW referred to Australia by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program. This was in fact made possible due to the halting of people smuggling. Spikey would perhaps be aware that these two programs had to be suspended for a time due the large number of secondary movement asylum seekers arriving prior to the halting of people smuggling.

A question: should Australia’s refugee program predominantly consist of refugees referred to Australia by the UNHCR and refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program or should people smugglers be allowed to contribute large numbers of secondary movement asylum seekers to the refugee program ? And if people smuggling were to recommence, what then ?

Spikey stated that since he views my opening premise as factually wrong, the rest of my contribution becomes worthless. My opening premise can be seen to be factually correct if taken before the time people smuggling was halted and if people smuggling were to recommence. Therefore, as to the rest of my contribution thus becoming worthless, it could be asked based on what logical reasoning ? It describes an actual event that took place in July 2001 before the halting of people smuggling, and from that event conclusions and inferences can be drawn. Perhaps Spikey can revaluate that event in the context of events of the time before people smuggling was halted.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 27 June 2008 3:01:45 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
Franklin on Wednesday:

"The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need." Is. Note present tense.

Franklin on Friday:

“The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers prior to the halting of people smuggling was selection became based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need”.

Note past tense. Amazing what some hard evidence will do to a loose and wild assertion.

Spikey on Wednesday:

"The vast majority of Australia's refugees are referred to Australia by the UNHCR (6,003 in 2006-7) or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program (5,183 in 2006-7)."

Franklin on Friday:

"The vast majority of Australia's refugees are NOW referred to Australia by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program."

Spikey now: The vast majority of Australia's refugees have always been referred by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program, not just since the boat people stopped coming.

Franklin on Friday asks: "Should Australia’s refugee program predominantly consist of refugees referred to Australia by the UNHCR and refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program or should people smugglers be allowed to contribute large numbers of secondary movement asylum seekers to the refugee program ?"

Duh? What giant intellect am I dealing with?
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 27 June 2008 7:53:44 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 asylum seeker debate was divisive and polarised public opinion, and still does today. It would be instructive to examine the Australian public’s attitudes to the refugee program at the time when captive to people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

Monash University academic Adrienne Millbank noted “The Tampa and post-Tampa measures have been deeply divisive, with the extent of public support for the [Howard] Government’s tough actions matched by the intensity of criticism and moral outrage which continues to be expressed by refugee and human rights activists and high profile commentators.”

Paul Sheehan, in his excellent book “The Electronic Whorehouse” examining media bias on various issues, noted the following:

“Despite media uproar about the “demonising” of boat people [secondary movement asylum seekers], the argument failed to have moral resonance with the majority of Australians. The 2001 Australian Electoral Study, which analysed the behaviour of the electorate, surveyed voters at the height of the campaign and found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people. This majority support held true across eight of nine occupational categories into which respondents were divided.

In only one category, “social professionals”, was there majority opposition to government policy, and this category only represented 10 per cent of those surveyed. “The attitudes of the social professionals are quite unlike those of the rest of the sample”, wrote Dr Katherine Betts in an analysis of the electoral survey. “It shows how unrepresentative the vocal social professionals are of other voters; it is not just that they do not speak for the working class, they do not speak for a majority in any other occupational group.”

Sheehan also noted: “Had the government been perceived by the public to be allowing Australian sovereignty to be rendered irrelevant and public policy to be dictated by an alliance of people smugglers, asylum seekers, journalists and legal activists, the political upheaval would have been enormous. Real damage would have been done to the public’s faith in the legal system, the democratic process and the immigration system.”
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:16:05 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
Franklin

I agree with you that the asylum seeker debate was divisive. And that - at the height of the debate - more people than not were satisfied with the Howard Government's handling of refugees.

But what comfort do you take in that? Public morality is not a function of majority opinion in all instances. Public opinion is determined by a number of considerations such as knowledge of the facts, governments being honest with the people, and leadership by respected authoritative voices. For example, the late Peter Andren, (Independent MP for Calare NSW) defied unpopular sentiment in his electorate on asylum seekers and went out of his way to give his reasons in the local media thoughtfully, logically and persuasively. So much so that his vote increased in two successive elections when this was still a hot topic.

Many examples could be given of courageous people who have taken on unpopular opinions over time. Some have died for their opinions; others have been able to bring people around to a better understanding and a more tolerant position.

When you think of the White Australia Policy, rights for women, the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, and a host of other issues, you can't but be impressed with the capacity of the Australian people to move forward to a sounder position. Remember the 'good old days' when 'wogs' were abused in the streets and Catholics couldn't get jobs in the public service?
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 4:21:55 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
My first comments described secondary movement asylum seekers as being asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in affluent Western countries. The severe conditions occurring in a typical refugee camp were described and the question posed why refugees in such camps do not themselves become secondary movement asylum seekers.

My second comments noted that secondary movement asylum seekers have access to considerable financial resources compared to most of the world’s refugees, illustrated by the magnitude of the payment to people smugglers required by a large family group onboard sievx. The question was posed should secondary movement asylum seekers with substantial financial resources have taken precedence in Australia’s refugee program over refugees in much greater need in foreign refugee camps.

My third comments noted that 80% of secondary movement asylum seekers arrived in Australia without documentation, thus making verification of their stories of persecution a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. The extremely low acceptance rate of a group of secondary movement asylum seekers was noted when intercepted carrying documentation and processed under UNHCR procedures (as is done in refugee camps), contrasting greatly to the acceptance rates of secondary movement asylum seekers arriving without documentation when processed under Australia’s much more lenient legal procedures.

My fourth comments noted that people also leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic reasons, and that people smugglers attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic migrants as asylum seekers. My fifth comments examined the Australian public’s attitudes to secondary movement asylum seekers and people smuggling, and noted that research indicated there was low public support for either apart from certain groups.

Open-minded readers can ascertain for themselves the “bigger picture” formed by the information presented, and can come to their own inferences and conclusions. However, consideration should be given to whether the information presented could at the least indicate that something was “not quite right” when Australia’s refugee program was captive to people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:23:56 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
Franklin

Notwithstanding Goebbels, no matter how often you repeat the mantra, it won't be any truer than the first time you said it.
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:49:13 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
Adrienne Millbank, a Monash University academic, wrote informative and well reasoned papers on asylum seeker issues. Her academic paper entitled “DARK VICTORY OR CIRCUIT BREAKER: AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE SYSTEM POST TAMPA “details the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, in great part due to people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers. It is available for downloading at the following site:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2

Also highly recommended by Adrienne Millbank is a research paper for the Social Policy Group of the Australian Government entitled “THE PROBLEM WITH THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION”. It is available for downloading at the following site:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

Dr. Katharine Betts, an associate professor of sociology at Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria, has investigated and written at depth on Australian’s attitudes to immigration. An informative paper on the Australian public’s attitude to secondary movement asylum seekers is available at:

www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1203/article_1082.shtml

Alexander Casella was a senior official with the UNHCR and became a migration consultant. He wrote an informative paper entitled “Australia's asylum policy holds course” and a review of “Dark Victory” which can be found as following:

http://www.atimes.com/oceania/DF01Ah03.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EJ25Aa01.html

Russell Skelton is an investigative journalist from “The Age” newspaper in Melbourne and spent some time in Afghanistan investigating the asylum seeker issue. Two confronting stories that he filed can be found as following:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080728677.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:07:41 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
Franklin

Thanks for the references.

One problem: I could not open the Betts paper - perhaps you have an incorrect address?

Another issue: Of the six papers I did open there was nothing more recent than 2003 and I've been through all that material years ago.

Can you recommend anything more up-to-date?
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:26:49 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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