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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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