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 > Seeking Australian asylum: a well founded fear > Comments

Seeking Australian asylum: a well founded fear : Comments

By David Corlett, published 20/11/2008

Instead of receiving protection and safety, they were detained within Australia’s Pacific Solution before being returned to Afghanistan; a country racked by violence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All
I hope the ‘huge’ audience watching ‘A Well Founded Fear’ on SBS last night weren’t as sad as the super-sucker, Phil Glendenning looked as he listened to (mainly translated) stories about what had supposedly happened to illegals who were sent back to Afghanistan by Australia six or seven years ago, after it was found that they were not refugees according to United Nations criteria.

There was absolutely no evidence that any of the people returned to Afghanistan were in any more danger than the rest of the Afghans who have stayed in their own country through thick and thin. Everything was hearsay, and the programme looked like a set up to keep a few peculiar Australians in work and travel. Not to mention the saps who watch SBS regularly. The woman who refused to accept a taxi fare from her ‘dear brother’ (Glendenning) was a real weepy, proving to SBS aficionados what a stoic, brave and worthy people the Afghans are; and rotten Australians won’t help them - apart from sending our soldiers there to be killed, of course, when the pit which is Afghanistan has nothing to do with Australia.

While the author claims that the programme, “… provides a harrowing insight into the consequences of Australia’s response to people seeking protection during the Howard years”, all but the SBS-brainwashed and self-haters would have seen it as a piece of disgusting indulgence on the part of a few sad sacks intent on venting their spleens and hatred of their own country: a country which allows them to serve up such rubbish, and whose taxpayers are forced to provide the means to do it.

Continued...
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 20 November 2008 12:45:18 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
...continued

Not surprisingly, the author is pleased to say that this SBS beat up is: “… a story of corrupt, and arguably illegal, practices on the part of some Australian immigration officials”, with absolutely no evidence – just tales from already untrustworthy people (illegal immigrants, found not to be refugees) and false passports and statements supposedly made by immigration officials.

The theme of ‘A Well Founded Fear’, this back-up article and the Edmund Rice Centre is one designed to twist people into hating their own country and people, and believing their warped, minority idea that Australia has badly treated people who have lied and cheated their way to our shores – often in hip-hop fashion, as it suits them - while the majority of the citizens in their countries of origin seem to manage the hardships bravely.

We can be sure that these stories will be “…told again and again” by minorities trying to aggrandise themselves with lost causes. Don’t be fooled by their claim to ‘right’ and ‘compassion’ – things they accuse the majority of Australians of not having – nor by their silly statements that our treatment of people trying to seek residence in our country by turning up in boats somehow “compromised our own humanity”. Despite the fact that we received many country-shoppers, most were accepted; we were much more lenient than the UN.

The pseudo compassion is all about a small bunch of bleeding hearts who crave the publicity: malcontents and losers who will always be with us because of our democracy, although they are themselves far from democratic.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 20 November 2008 12:50:11 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
I agree with all you said Mr Right.

There are any number of countries which Afghanis (if they are Afghanis) have to travel through before they get onto boats intent on the circumvention of Australian Migration regulations.

This is just another beef up from the bleeding hearts who just don’t understand the travesty of letting anyone jump the queue ahead of those who wait in camps around the world and quietly respect the declared process for refugee application.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 November 2008 12:57:40 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
But Mr Right..... wait wait.... it doesn't MATTER if it's all hearsay, second hand.. opinion.... gossip.....

What MATTERS is how much guilt can be piled on Australian politicians which is aimed at intimidating them into relaxing border controls, and opening this country up to untold numbers of aliens who bypassed many other countries just to come here for a better economic opportunity and of course, to contribute to the numbers of Green, Socialist, Religious or Ethnic Interest voters.

You see.. (I'm sure you know this) "Immigration" is never about people.. it is ALways about 'Politics'.

You just have to scratch a bit to see it.

When you consider that a Liberal member won her seat after a couple of recounts..and then only by the numbers of votes you have fingers and toes for..... you don't have to be brilliant to know that in such a seat, a couple of extended families of Afghans.....could make all the difference.

If the election was a cliffhanger, it is not just conceivable..it is VERY possible that those extended families could determine the next historical step for Australia by determining the outcome of a close election.

So.. let's not criticize the method of the SBS 'documentary'...let's cut to the chase and get to the REAL MOTIVES.

-Advancing ethnic interests over mainstream.
-Advancing political aspirations of minority parties such as Greens and Socialists.
-Altering the demographic balance in Australia in favor of achieving the first 2 points
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 20 November 2008 1:23:20 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
What really upsets me is that some of the illegals that took over the Tampa actually got to Australia.

These people showed their gratitude for bring rescued from a sinking vessel by taking over the Tampa and ordering her to sail to Christmas Island. Thats right they hijacked the Tampa and, at least, some should have been charged with hijacking and piracy. None should have ever been allowed into Australia.

Not to mention their conduct while on our navy ship taking them to Nauru.

We do not need people of that calibre. Our government was totally weak.

I have no sympathy for these people. Our men are over there trying to make it safe for the citizens there and this lot care little about that.

It never seems to occur to those writing this rubbish, that if the Tampa had been allowed to continue to Indonesia and the rescue story told, the disaster of the Siev X may well have been avoided.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 20 November 2008 3:25:35 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
Polycarp

I was going to write a reply to yours. But then I thought, why waste my time - and yours?

This is one of your sillier posts. Read it again, dear boy, and see if you can spot the flaws in your logic.
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 20 November 2008 5:20:53 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 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 in Australia 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, obviously 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 great 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, Thursday, 20 November 2008 6:36:31 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
This article is a disturbing reminder of the Australian government's blunders on asylum seekers.

It is interesting to note just how "efficient" our government has been in their selection programme.

In Australia, several of the selected refugees or migrants are plotting to blow us up yet the SBS programme portrayed the pitiful rejects - where some, provided with fake passports by a callous Australian government, were dumped in alien countries, forced to evade the authorities.

Edmund Rice is the founder of the Christian Brothers, represented in this saga by Phil Glendenning. I as an atheist, have had much to do with the Christian Brothers and I reject the cynicism of posters on this thread. I do not regard them as "bleeding hearts."

I regard the programme on SBS and this article as genuine and I can see no reason to doubt either. The motives of the Edmund Rice Centre and its representative are, in my opinion, purely altruistic and sincere.

While I am as concerned as anyone else about accepting illegal asylum seekers (or increasing our population for that matter) I maintain that we are well rid of Mr Howard and his ruthless cabal of incompetent buffoons whose hasty stuff-ups and disgraceful, long-term incarcerations of asylum seekers, continue to portray this country as a nation who ignores basic human rights.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 21 November 2008 12:01:45 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
Dear Spikey....

yes my last post was laced with a degree of colorful exaggeration and cynicism...but as to the basic reasoning? It's without spot or blemish..I've lived it all :)

Much of what goes on in the name of 'Public Policy' is nothing more than the advancement of personal/political interest. In fact..I'd say MOST.

Just check this out. "Councillors".. local.. they talk about
-Footpaths
-Local infrastructure
-Betterment of quality of life

ETC.... etc...

BUT.... here is the reality.

Yesterday I asked a councillor who wanted the Mayoral candidates to state their positions on things, this was refused by vote by those allied with the Mayoral candidates. A kind of.. "well Les, you were mayor for a few years.. now its my turn mate" "Err sure thing Tony.. and don't worry about those building applications by your mate Sam (ethnic association/religious mate (of Tony) by the way) we'll (wink wink) help them along"
Yes..that is a hyperthetical conversation, but it reflects the strongly suspected reality
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 21 November 2008 5:41:00 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
Dear Polycarp

The graft and bribery to which you refer has been occurring in this country since I was a girl and believe me mate, that's dinosaur era!

I agree, the ethnics have always been adept at it. The Aussies nevertheless have always practised it too - they're just a little more covert and underhand at getting their mitts on the "black!"

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Friday, 21 November 2008 8:41:41 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
Phew! There haven't been many articles lately about refugees and this article has come in just the nick of time. The first handful of posts show a head of steam has been building for some time just begging for an outlet, so thank heavens for OLO. Who knows how these people stay sane without a regular venting of the spleen.

I don’t see a need to re-examine all the actions and policies of the previous government; this was done at the time and anyone who is going to have an opinion already has one. It’s where we go from here that matters. I still believe we in Oz are both isolated and insulated from the realities of existence in poorer, less secure countries.

Some level-headed commentary on this program can be found in today's Australian Letters to the Editor at http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/our_recent_history_is_still_with_us_not_just_on_tv/
Posted by bennie, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:14:46 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
Mr.Right, Col Rouge, Polycarp, Banjo and franklin you can do better than that. I have been dealing with refugees since 1972. I have twice been posted to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I helped refugees escape from South Africa.
Not every one has the courage or the means to escape oppressive regimes, even when injury and death may be the consequence. Put yourselves in a situation where all you hold dear is threatened. Would you expect New Zealand, Canada, the US, UK, Taiwan or India to take you and your families in? Lives are being discussed. These are people like you and I. Not lesser beings, not less deserving. I also worked on the RRT for 6 years. Decision making on that Tribunal is tough and to do the job properly and within the law you cannot be a bleeding heart.
There is a debate to be had on this subject but not in the terms that you have outlined.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:28:29 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
I agree with bennie - this is a timely article that reminds us not only of the inhumanity of the erstwhile Howard regime, but also of the existence among us of significant numbers of heartless bastards like Mr Right, Porkycrap, Col Rouge, franklin and Banjo.

As David Corlett says, "We are a lesser nation for the fate to which we have returned these people". We are also a lesser nation for the existence among us of selfish and inhumane xenophobes such as those named above.

Thanks also to Spikey, dickie and Bruce Haigh for reminding us that there are plenty of decent Aussies out here, as opposed to the odious minority who are overly represented at OLO.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 21 November 2008 11:16:23 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
Bruce Haigh provides emotive generalizations but does not directly comment on the issues raised by Mr.Right, Col Rouge, Polycarp, Banjo and myself. Instead he states there is a debate to be had on this subject but not in the terms that have been outlined. Why only on the terms you prefer Bruce Haigh ? Commentary on the mindset of Bruce Haigh on the secondary movement asylum seeker debate can be viewed at the following online blog:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/haighs_chocolate_coating

CJMorgan’s references to “heartless bastards like Mr Right, Porkycrap, Col Rouge, franklin and Banjo” and the “odious minority who are overly represented at OLO” are most disappointing. What is to be gained by making comments such as these. It needs to be realised that there were many intelligent, decent and caring people who supported the Howard governments stance on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

The secondary movement asylum seeker debate was by no means a black and white issue, there were many very facets to it. It can perhaps be described as a moral dilema in terms of should Australia’s humanitarian efforts have been aimed towards those most in need or should precedence for Australia’s humanitarian efforts have been allowed to be taken by secondary movement asylum seekers engaging people smugglers at the expense of unhcr refugees in such places as Kakuma Refugee camp. It seems that the majority of the Australian electorate seemed to prefer that Australia’s humanitarian efforts were aimed towards those most in need.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 21 November 2008 12:02:18 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
I don't have a problem with legitimate refugees
who are fleeing terrible conditions in their
homelands to want to stay in Australia.

After all
our country has signed an international agreement
to take in refugees. I believe that
genuine refugee numbers are not that large. Why
does it take so long to process them? It does border
on inhumanity to keep people here for years and years,
only to send them back.

I do have a problem with people who
jump the queue ahead of everyone else, and
come here for economic reasons. Many of these people
have criminal records - and would have a problem being
accepted.

Why does our government place these people in detention
centres at the taxpayers expense?
Why aren't these people screened much quicker? If New
Zealand can manage to do it faster, why can't we?

There must be a better way of sifting through the numbers
and processing the genuine from the fraudulent.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 November 2008 1:27:23 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
Bruce,

Never mind. I agreed with your last article and the one today.

While I accept that you have had a professional role with refugees, I do not agree that it takes more courage to cut and run than it does to stay behind. To be honest, I don’t see how a man like you can believe that either.

There is no point in asking us to put ourselves in other people’s shoes when we clearly do not know what we would do. Decisions are made, and opinions formed, all the time by people who don’t have to answer hypothetical questions like that. Government policy is not based on ‘what-would-I-do-feel-if-it-were-me’ when people responsible make decisions and draft laws. As a diplomat, you would know that.

Difficult questions and dilemmas concerning other people are always made by people not experiencing the problems of those affected by their decisions.

Of course the people we are talking about are not “lesser beings”, but I think that you are trying to pull the old ‘weepies’ and ‘we won’t go to heaven if we don’t…’ stuff there.

But, life is harder for some than it is for others, and that is not the fault of the Howard Government, the current Government, or the Australian people.

The RRT is certainly no place for bleeding hearts. The law is the law, and I feel sure that you discharged your duties well. The same applies to time-wasting appeals to the High Court. If the work of magistrates and Tribunals has been done according to law, appeals will be dismissed.

I don’t see what any of this has to do with my post (which I stand by with sincerity), and I do not see your problem with my bleeding heart comments regarding the programme in question, the meddling NGO concerned and the dubious claims made by people on that programme.

Thanks for you comments.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 21 November 2008 1:31:06 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
Bruce.. yes, I'm sure I can do better.

Today on the news, it was reported that in the last month we have had 6 attempted boat loads of so called assylum seekers try to reach here.

3 were turned back by Indonesia and the other 3 apparently made it.

Last year, we had SIX boats.. now..as the news caster said "we might call it a coincidence" that as soon as Nauru etc have been dismantled....and some other measures loosened up.. suddenly we have as many boats of illegals in a month as we did in a year........

The simple fact is, that if we are a soft target.. we will be abused and used.

Your work in helping genuine assylum seekers is noble..no problem with that.. as long as it does not infringe on our scheduled refugee program.

None of us were born yesterday, we all (including you) know that there are more assylum seekers in the world than our whole population many times over.. and clearly we cannot take more than a selected few.
That is the rather cold fact of life.
It means..that some people who would like to come here cannot..and may die as a result. This does not mean we should accept any more than our national interest (cultural/political/religious/demographic) and our environmental sustainability can allow.

I'm all for a VERY tough line against the boat people.. they know we have a refugee program, they just want to circumvent it.

If you use the argument that 'but they cannot access that program easily'.. I'm afraid you have to then apply that to ALL refugees in that category.....

I still maintain that immigration, both illegal and legal is always about politics not people.

Our advocates and politicians just disguise that in flowery emotive language..that's all.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 21 November 2008 3:59:50 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
Polycarp says:

"we all...know that there are more assylum seekers in the world than our whole population many times over.. and clearly we cannot take more than a selected few.
That is the rather cold fact of life. It means..that some people who would like to come here cannot..and may die as a result. This does not mean we should accept any more than our national interest (cultural/political/religious/demographic) and our environmental sustainability can allow."

Yes, that's what you think. But what would Jesus Christ have said about the value of human life as against the so-called national interest? Would He have said: "That is the rather cold fact of life"? Would he have said people might die, but oh well that's life?
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 21 November 2008 5:52:18 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
OK,so I'm a 'heartless bastard' for advocating tough measures on those seeking to impose themselves on us and take advantage of our goodwill and generousity. I'm perfectly willing to help and extend a hand to genuine refugees but the boat people are nothing more than gate crashers. The story of seeking safety and refuge just doesn't wash. There are plenty of countries that have signed the same treaty as us, that are much closer and easier to get to than Aus. Check the UN list and have a look at a map.

I do totally hold those that hijacked the Tampa responsible for the loss of those 350 people on the Siev X. I remain convinced that had the Tampa been allowed to take those rescued to Indonesia the Siev X would not have sailed. Those rescued by the Tampa had an obligation to tell their rescue story to the others waiting to sail, about the dangers of the voyage. But no, the selfish bastards were only concerned for their own financial goals.

I have spent years working in a local service club, helping others, I applauded the NT intervention because of my concern for the kids, I applaud the recent announcement that all welfare recipients will be subject to spending controls, again for the benefit of the kids, I cried about the Tarthra tradgety and for little Sophie and others, I honour the sacrifices made by our diggers on Rememberance and Anzac Day.

But I do not feel for the Bali bombers, or the Bali nine and that dum dum that was hanged in Signapore a year or so ago, or for Corby. They were aware of and knew the consequences of their actions. And I want strong deterants for the illegal boat people. If that makes me heartless then so be it.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 21 November 2008 8:18:11 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
Why is there this hang up up on boat people? Far more refugee applicants arrive by plane than by boat. Then there are those on business and student visas who claim refugee status and backpackers who overstay. I agree the number of refugees in the world is a challenge to our compassion. Perhaps we should only take refugees and scrap the social engineering contained in our immigration program. Of the 15 male Hazara refugees that worked at the Mudgee Abattoir until it's closure, all are in employment,none have ever sought government unemployment assistance and all their kids are doing well at school and uni.
Their story is like that of my great granparents and for that reason alone I can't understand why there should be two sets of rules, one that is OK for my anglo and celtic rellies and another for people from other parts of the world.
franklin, how dare you point me in the direction of Andrew Bolt. He had the arrogance and stupidity to publicly deny my own story. He didn't ring to discuss his belief, he just published. A particular sort of gutlessness from a man who has achieved little with his own life. I note he counts amongst his friends Alexander Downer, the architect of the Pacific solution and by that friendship alone Bolt should be judged.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:27:47 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
Porky: << I'm all for a VERY tough line against the boat people.. >>

Such a great example of Christian compassion.

Banjo: << OK,so I'm a 'heartless bastard'... >>

OK Banjo - you're a selectively heartless bastard.

Bruce Haigh: << Perhaps we should only take refugees and scrap the social engineering contained in our immigration program. >>

That's precisely what I've advocated several times in this forum.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:46:01 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
An important and timely article, David.

Yours and Phil Glendenning's efforts are greatly appreciated by the many Australians who do indeed feel their humanity has been compromised by the callous return of these asylum seekers to their fate. Don't be deterred by the complete lack of humanity in some of the responses here. Some amongst us don't care, but most do. Australia needs to know exactly how many of these deaths it has on its conscience. And most importantly now, we all have to make sure there are no more of them happening in our name.

Polycrap

"Last year, we had SIX boats.. now.. as soon as Nauru etc have been dismantled....and some other measures loosened up.. suddenly we have as many boats of illegals in a month as we did in a year........"

Setting sail across an ocean on a small rotting vessel is a risky gamble at the best of times. There's a small window of opportunity between the cold winter and the summer storm season when the odds of surviving such a perilous journey are slightly higher. That's the reason boats have been intercepted recently. It's not a result, as you claim, of a loosening-up of measures.

The Rudd Government is not making it any easier to gain asylum in Australia than its predecessor did. Boat arrivals are still being kept off the mainland - admittedly not on Nauru, but on Christmas Island - a little closer and a little more civilised, but not a whole lot different really. Detainees are not being locked up as they were and attempts are being made to speed up the assessment process, but there is absolutely no guarantee the end result will be any more lenient to that arrived at previously.

Bruce and CJ

"Perhaps we should only take refugees and scrap the social engineering contained in our immigration program."

I agree. Let's have more assistance to refugees in desperate need of a new start, and much less of the selfish poaching of migrants from countries who can ill afford to lose them.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 22 November 2008 1:35:57 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 nobody buys into this? You'd think leftist bleeding hearts would hate them. It's tantamount to the rich Afghani's getting out while the poorest can't do a damn thing.

Let them in because they look different and whites used to own slaves. What garbage.

Best way to help them is to smash their vile, misoginistic, tribal desert culture values and replace them with superior and civilised western ones.

There I said it.

That way we help all of them! I'm the ultimate leftist! It just means you have to use the military and kill those who don't want to be western (although they do because it's so obvious our values are superior - the only person I've heard of that's travelled the other way was David 'hillbilly' Hick...yes...Hick...not Hicks.
Posted by Benjam1n, Saturday, 22 November 2008 6:01:15 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
There is still a lot of emotion and spin going on here..

CJ says (quoting Bruce)'scrap the social engineering in immigration'

Now.. CJ.. can you show me how that differs from my claim that Immigration is POLITICAL.. i.e.. socially engineered?

I completely agree.. EXCEPT.. in that I would hastily add, that our national/cultural/political and social interest must ALways come first in the determination of suitability of refugees. To not do so is to shoot one's self in the foot.

You and I both know, you would never accept Palestinians from refugee camps on Lebanon where they maintain a hard line anti Israels existence political line.. as you would realize that they would simply bring those hatreds to here and endanger the nearest synagogue.

You, and I would both accept genuine Palestinians who did not hold such views.. but ONLY (in my case) in very limited and managable numbers.

What you and Bronny and some others seem to miss (or..for political reasons deliberately ignore) is that boat people are as much about social engineering as the 'Busines migration' or.. 'blue collar Skills' migration programs of the Coalition and Labor.

You can call me a heartless this or that till the cows come home *mooooo*...I never respond well to shallow emotive (politically based?) arguments nor to the 'ur a bad Christian' mantra :) sorrrrrry!

You see.. I don't care if it's labor or coalition or green policy.. as long as it is GOOD policy and puts our national interest first and is based on the lessons of history and social dynamics.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 22 November 2008 8:08:01 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
Polycarp pleads:

"I never respond well to shallow emotive (politically based?) arguments nor to the 'ur a bad Christian' mantra."

Well then, dear chap, stop posting shallow emotive (politically based?) argument ad stop telling us all that 'ur a bad Christian'.
Posted by Spikey, Saturday, 22 November 2008 9:39:27 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
"You can call me a heartless this or that till the cows come home *mooooo*...I never respond well to shallow emotive (politically based?) arguments nor to the 'ur a bad Christian' mantra :) sorrrrrry!"

Don't labour the point, Poly. The majority of discussions on this site are political. Your attempts to make a mean and nasty point of view look half respectable aren't fooling anyone. This debate, before all else, is about humans caring for fellow humans, it's the sort of issue that should be a complete no-brainer for a hand-on-heart Christian like yourself.

Not sure if you actually watched the SBS documentary, but no human with a beating heart could fail to be moved by the kind, intelligent, finely-etched and long-suffering face of Mohammed Hussain, and the horrific knowledge that he has since been thrown down a well and blown up by a hand grenade. I'm guessing both events occurred in the same spot. If so, how long and how horribly did he suffer down there? I wonder if he thought of Australia and the way he'd been so cruelly evicted, just when he'd been reaching out for his one hope of starting a new life.

I don't know about you, Poly, but I know I'm totally haunted by this image. I won't rest until the hate-filled messages from people like you are silenced, once and for all.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 22 November 2008 10:53:49 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 next thing we know, Bruce and others who thinks it's OK for all and sundry to rock up and be accepted by Australia, will be demanding medals for people who run away from their countries because they are sooooo... 'Brave'.

The thing that really gets me with these bleeding -heart, self-hating anti-Australians is their complete inability to see the perversity of their beliefs that we should be accepting the gutless, cheating illegals while their fellow citizens stay at home.

These do-gooders probably would not allow total strangers, with a completely unknown background into their own homes just because they knocked on their front door and demanded entry. They probably warn their kids about ‘stranger danger’. But, when it comes to illegal entrants, where they have no personal responsibility for dealing with the intruders who will not affect their own lives; and while it is a fashionable FEW who have run away from home, they like to pose as ‘good’, ‘compassionate’ people who know very well that they will be able to get away with their posturing because common sense and survival will ensure that any government will act against the kind of numbers we see surging across borders in places like Africa.

These types of people are completely and utterly unnatural. Unlike most citizens of any country they don’t appear to have the inherent instinct of defence and self-preservation; they have no self-respect nor any respect for their own race, colour and creed. They feel a need to be ashamed of being white and Western. They have to ‘atone’ for what they see as perceived past and present sins perpetrated by their own ‘dreadful’ white race against colonies, developing countries, anyone not white and all other targets for their wonderful ‘compassion’.

All democratic countries have specimens of this renegade minority who were standing behind the door when natural instincts and common sense were handed out. Fortunately they are in the minority; they are extremely tiresome
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 22 November 2008 12:54:54 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
There, there, feel better now Mr. Right. Did you get rid of it all? perhaps not, have another little throat clear and a good spit.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Saturday, 22 November 2008 1:30:52 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
Indeed, Bruce. I rather hope that Mr Right wiped his arse and washed his hands thoroughly after passing that last lot.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 22 November 2008 5:11:43 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
*but no human with a beating heart could fail to be moved by the kind, intelligent, finely-etched and long-suffering face of Mohammed Hussain,*

You miss the point entirely Bronwyn, but I expect no more from you.

The problem with our bleeding heart greenies, as distinct from some
thinking greenies, is that they are driven by emotional instincts,
seldom understanding the big picture, which is what matters.

Last time I checked, there were about 20 million people living
in refugee camps. Even more tens of millions are living in countries
where their lives are threatened. Most of them would have a very
sad story to tell, but the reality is that Australia cannot take
them all.

Bronwyn weeps over what she sees on tv, the rest seem to be out of
sight is out of mind. Reality of course, has to prevail.

So the question arises as to how many a year Australia should
take and how to select them.

Clearly its mainly young males, who can afford the journey and bribes,
who travel to Australia. What about women and children left in the
camps? Why should young, relatively rich males come first?

Our bleeding heart greenies are of course in a quandry on this
one. On the one hand, they want to limit Australia's population,
on the other hand, they have yet to say how many millions should
be accepted, before even they are overwhelmed.

Sorry, but wearing your heart on your sleeve, is not going to solve
this one.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 22 November 2008 10:03:31 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
Someone said that we can’t possibly know what refugees feel or what decisions they have to make. Well, yeah, actually, we can. We can listen to their stories. And in order to do this we have to find a lot more stories, rather than relying on popular print media or commercial channels.

It is from a combination of print media and newspapers that the majority of people receive their first impressions of current events. Few are prepared to concede however, that the original way in which the story was presented influences their bias on the subject. After all, we all like to think of ourselves as strong-minded and Independent. In fact a lot popular media sites pander unashamedly to this common misapprehension.

Some stridently negative voices come from those who knew nothing more about the subject other than what they’ve read in the papers or seen on t.v.

When my children & I were trying to get out of South Africa we were offered free passage to Australia through a tender-hearted philanthropist but who also ran a regular business. You know, the kind newspapers disregard in favour of the “unscrupulous” people-smuggler. During this brief period of contact with the movement of people through countries I was tempted by his offer .I also heard a harrowing amount of first-hand personal accounts. However I eventually declined the offer and instead plunged my kids and myself into a 5 year nightmare - the legal channels.

If you seriously can’t recognize the courage needed nor the personal despair and terror attendant of severing every single link one has in the world then you are being obtuse, I fear.

While those who genuinely can’t - for whatever reason – imagine all the complexities in this problem should, I think, make it their business to at least listen to the voices from the other side. If the word “refugee” brings to anyone’s mind the Tampa (an image seen on television), rather than the face of an actual living, breathing person, then I suggest they are not fitted to be dogmatic upon this issue
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 22 November 2008 10:13:29 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
Dear Bronwyn

As Yabby said: "you miss the point".

"This debate, before all else, is about humans caring for fellow humans,"

If only it was that simple!

All you see, are the faces and stories. You don't see the bigger picture.
Me.. I just ask one question: "Why the heck have they ended up in AUSTRALIA rather than closer places?" The issue was, is and always will be.. 'SAFETY' not job opportunities..not 'my cousin is already there' not "better lifestyle".

What most of us who are unmoved by the blatant emotiveness of such stories are on about is that. SAFETY is the issue.. which is available much MUCH closer to Afghanistan than Australia.

Thus we ask 'why' do they come to our country? Clearly..it is not about 'safety' but about opportunity.

For me.. perhaps I'm a bit more wary than many, as I know how these things pan out over time. I've mentioned before that our early missionaries gave life to the Malay/Muslim villagers near us, attending to them and helping them. But such love and compassion only works for THAT generation. It is not transferred to their offspring.

Just like a "Pharaoh who did not know Joseph" arose in Egypt..so a generation which only knows "rights and self interest" and couldn't care a damn about non them will arise from such people if they manage to stay in ethnic/religious ghetto's.

For this reason.. my compassion is limited to those who my elected representatives agree to allow in, under our control and discretion.

Just because someone is poor does not give them the right to rob a bank... nor to circumvent our established refugee program.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 23 November 2008 7:42:57 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
Yabby

“You miss the point entirely Bronwyn, but I expect no more from you.”

No, Yabby, I haven’t missed the point. Nor have I missed, once again, the patronizing arrogance in your words, but then again ‘I expect no more from you’ either.

This particular discussion is about the asylum seekers Australia has deported back to danger and/or death. Mourning the suffering and death of the latest victim is a perfectly valid response.

“The problem with our bleeding heart greenies, as distinct from some thinking greenies, is that they are driven by emotional instincts, seldom understanding the big picture, which is what matters.”

I understand the big picture every bit as clearly as you do, Yabby. I also understand that the big picture consists of individual lives which each have value.

“Clearly its mainly young males, who can afford the journey and bribes, who travel to Australia. What about women and children left in the camps? Why should young, relatively rich males come first?”

It’s common for extended families to sell all they own in order to scrape together enough money to pay for the passage of one family member. Younger males are usually the fittest and most likely to survive the journey, which is why they are chosen, with the hope that eventually other family members will be able to join them.

“Our bleeding heart greenies are of course in a quandry on this one. On the one hand, they want to limit Australia's population, on the other hand, they have yet to say how many millions should be accepted, before even they are overwhelmed.”

There’s no quandary, Yabby. I’ve stated many times that we should increase our humanitarian intake to at least 20 000 and at the same time reduce our immigration program by a similar percentage. I imagine my views are not dissimilar to those of many green voters. They certainly accord with official Greens policy - “The Australian Greens want an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.” No confusion there, Yabby.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 23 November 2008 9:47:59 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
*I also understand that the
big picture consists of individual lives which each have value.*

In that case Bronwyn, you would understand that we are talking of
tens of millions of individual lives, which each have value.
Reality prevails, we cannot take tens of millions.

*It’s common for extended families to sell all they own in order to scrape together enough money to pay for the passage of one family member.*

Its also well known that the biggest money spinner in Afghanistan
is heroin. By your system, those best at drug dealing, with the
most money, would be first on the list of refugees. Sorry, but
we agree to disagree on this one. What about women and children
who don't have two cents to rub together?

* we should increase our humanitarian intake to at least 20 000 *

Golly gosh, 20'000 hey, when there are tens of millions wanting to
come here? If you open the floodgates, how many hundreds of thousands
a year will you accept? When will you pull up the drawbridge?

If the Greens should ever get anywhere near Govt, sounds like I
could charter the Queen Mary or similar and bring them here in
their tens of thousands and make a great quid along the way.
They would all have individual lives, which have value. What would
you do then?
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 23 November 2008 2:51:06 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
Yabby and Polycarp babble away telling others to get 'the big picture', while displaying their own blinding ignorance of the global situation and the role of Australia in dealing with the issue.

Put away the Bible for a couple of days and study the UNHCR information which is readily found e.g. at: http://www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/4034b6a34.pdf Keywords: refugees, asylum seekers, Internally Displaced People, Returnees, Stateless People.

Connect the dots between Australia and Iraqi refugees, the world's most rapidly expanding group, up to 2m as at September 2007, or Afghanistan, the nation producing 20% of the world's refugees in 2007.

Australia is nowhere to be seen on the league table of nations taking large numbers of asylum seekers. (Compare South Africa, US, Kenya, France, UK, Sweden, Canada etc.) Makes a bit of a mockery of Yabby's specious and ingenuous claims that "....Australia cannot take them all" and Polycarp's "Why the heck have they ended up in AUSTRALIA rather than closer places?".

As for views that differ from Yabba's and Polycarp's being driven by emotions, I wryly observe that they both seem quite heated about their own prejudicial opinions.

Polycarp's hateful psychobabble: "But such love and compassion only works for THAT generation. It is not transferred to their offspring". No use asking him for evidence for such an amazing claim. He'll disappear from this forum for a while, or pick up on some other obscure point.

The so-called Christian doesn't recognise how unChristian he is in declaring that his "compassion is limited". Nor how absurd his debating techniques: " Just because someone is poor does not give them the right to rob a bank... nor to circumvent our established refugee program."

Yabby takes us to the other end of the silly spectrum suggesting that because it's "...well known that the biggest money spinner in Afghanistan is heroin...those best at drug dealing, with the most money, would be first on the list of refugees."

Yabby, if you're making squillions in drugs at home, you'd want to get on a leaky boat and come to the magical land far far away, eh?
Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 23 November 2008 4:53:13 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
Yabby, I often agree with you, but in this case I think you're dead wrong.

Those hapless souls who were sent back from refuge to their deaths in Afghanistan weren't wealthy drug lords. They were refugees who had what were evidently well founded fears for their lives in Afghanistan.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about someone in their position seeking asylum in countries such as Australia that are signatories to the UN Convention. It is to our collective shame that these people were returned to be murdered.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 23 November 2008 7:22:11 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
Well said CJ Morgan, thats it in a nutshell. Also well done Spikey and Bronwyn.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Sunday, 23 November 2008 8:28:25 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 said Bruce, you just keep rallying on the troops :)

CJ, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.

If it were up to me, I would rewrite and update the UN Convention,
for its neither fair nor equitable. Many in Europe have made the
same comments, for the asylum seeker problem has turned into a bit
of a disaster in many areas and its not the most deserving who
are being helped, but mostly those who seek a better economic
future in a so called rich country.

I'll make my point again. Why do you and others think that those
who have money are more deserving to live in Australia, then
those left in refugee camps (lots of women and children) without
two cents to rub together? I'm sticking up for the real underdogs
here, while you are barracking for those who can struggle to the
top of their respective food chain.

I have set no figure on how many asylum seekers that Australia
should take each year, that is for all Australians to debate and
somehow try to agree on a figure.

What I am saying is that selecting them by whoever sails to our
shores is not a fair way of making that selection, for it ignores
those most in need, who are stuck in refugee camps.

Next point, Australia needs to agree on an annual intake, whatever
it is that people agree on. Simply accepting all who sail or
fly here, even if its a million a year, is not a sensible policy,
or you will land up with the same problems as they have in Europe.

The easier you make it, the more will flock in.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 24 November 2008 12:25:43 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
CJ: Thanks for the lucidity - as Bruce said “That’s it in a nutshell”

No matter how many posts we put on OLO and no matter how much we denigrate those on the other side of the debate, the fact remains that

1) Our obligation is mandated (is that the actual legal term I mean?). and
2) We accept far less than many other countries

Where on earth did the idea that refugees are “flocking” to Australia come from? If you read the United Nations Committee for Refugees information you’ll see that the countries that are being flocked to are, unfortunately, the countries most economically marginalized (i.e. poor). But it is obvious from previous posts that it is only a certain kind of refugee who is being made representative of all displaced persons from a myriad of backgrounds.

As I said previously, getting dogmatic over a subject where one’s only viewpoint revolves around popular media or folk wisdom, is rather pointless (if not self-indulgent).

I also feel it is both noteworthy and rather tragic that those who seek to bluster their inhumanity away with righteous explanations of exactly who they feel legitimizes their concern, are those who most loudly proclaim their Christianity. The denunciation of those who express their concern for their fellow-human beings as being from the fringes of lunatic society communicates a far more succinct message about their brand of religion than all the toxically smug posts that such people post in such prolific and repetitious detail
Posted by Romany, Monday, 24 November 2008 1:23:55 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
Yabby

Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are distinctly different people.

Refugee have fled their own country because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion and are unable or unwilling to get protection in their own country (Convention on the Status of Refugees).

All refugees who come to this country are chosen by Australia. Most have been living in refugee camps. Numbers are decided year to year by our Government.

Asylum seekers are people who claim to be refugees, but whose claims have yet to be evaluated. Under international law, which Australia has committed to under successive governments for decades, we have a system to decide which asylum seekers qualify for refugee status. Those who are assessed not to be refugees are sent back to their home countries.

If our asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to come and make a claim in the first place. That's why it was important to make the reforms that the Rudd Government has made this year.

Asylum seekers who are later deemed to be refugees make up a minority of our humanitarian program.

Refugees and migrants are fundamentally different, and are treated differently under international law. Legally arriving migrants, who make up the vast bulk of our newcomers every year, choose to move in order to improve their future prospects. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or their freedom.

Let's not confuse asylum seekers and refugees with non-authorised migrants. To do so is to act without compassion for people in fear of their lives.

You say: "Australia needs to agree on an annual intake, whatever it is that people agree on. Simply accepting all who sail or fly here, even if its a million a year, is not a sensible policy, or you will land up with the same problems as they have in Europe."

Leaving aside the rhetorical flourishes - that is exactly Australia's policy. No need for Polycarpian scare-monger with half-truths and exaggerations.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 24 November 2008 8:57:25 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
I'm a little confused by some of the claims peripheral to the discussion of this article.

dickie says, in the 8th post in this thread,:

"Edmund Rice is the founder of the Christian Brothers, represented in this saga by Phil Glendenning. I as an atheist, have had much to do with the Christian Brothers and I reject the cynicism of posters on this thread. I do not regard them as "bleeding hearts."".

The article author, David Corlett, has embedded a link in the article in which the words 'Edmund Rice Centre' are highlighted, of which Centre he claims Phil Glendenning, the person who's travels are followed in the documentary, to be a director. Clicking on the words 'Edmund Rice Centre' in the article takes one to this page: http://www.erc.org/ , which is more fully described as being 'Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee Relocation Council)'. ERC describes its function in these terms "Worldwide ERC® provides current issues, trends, and best practices for the movement of employees within the United States as well as global mobility.". Are readers meant to take it that the letters 'ERC' ultimately derive from 'Edmund Rice Centre', even though there is suggested an additional source for the acronym?

The author seems to promote the interests of the Edmund Rice Centre. If dickie is correct that Phil Glendenning is also advancing the agenda of the Christian Brothers through the Edmund Rice Centre, and by necessary implication that of Worldwide ERC®, does this not reveal this secondary movement asylum seeking issue to be fundamentally a conflict between Australian national policy and the desires of the See of Rome?

The article attempts peddling guilt to Australians at large. It says: "....nothing has been done to rescue the hundreds of people who were denied protection by Australia and sent back to danger. ......in order that such people be saved, we as Australians need to accept responsibility for the acts that were perpetrated in our names. ...... We are a lesser nation for the fate to which we have returned these people."

Or so Rome wants to have it.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 24 November 2008 9:15:07 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
Bruce,

Attempting humour you are not capable of; attempting to denigrate me and my views, will not make you’re moral outrage any more valid.

I notice you could find only three people to say “well said” to. That should tell you something.

Romany,

You seem to be something of a country-jumper yourself. Last we heard you lived in China denying that you were not eating food fertilised with human ordure. You would have been the only person in China eating clean ‘fresh’ food. Now we hear a story about a valiant escape from South Africa. I hope it wasn’t the wonderful black government of Mandela or the last thug you felt the need to escape from after all the bile we get about white governments.

The voices you call “stridently negative” are very positive in the view of people you choose to call ‘strident’. They are positive voices for Australia. They are the majority of voices.

I can understand why you think it’s ‘brave’ to cut and run and leave your fellows behind – because you have done exactly that. You do, however, get marks for doing it legitimately.

Perhaps you could tell us what happened. Why you had to leave South Africa – you claim most of us are obtuse and need to listen. I would be very interested in what was required of you to get a visa. I would also like to know how immigration authorities arrive at the conclusion that illegals deserve asylum when they have no papers, they could be anyone from anywhere, and nothing is know about them except what they say.

I know for fact that the appeals written for unsuccessful country shoppers all to the same formulae, just with different names.
I believe quiet strongly that we are being conned by pseudo refugees, and the people employed in immigration are too stupid to know it.

I also find it significant that people who come to Australia, dissatisfied with their country of birth, make up a large percentage of the minority living here who constantly complain about Australians, and our government.
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 24 November 2008 10:15:03 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
Yabby says:

"I'll make my point again. Why do you and others think that those
who have money are more deserving to live in Australia, then
those left in refugee camps (lots of women and children) without
two cents to rub together?"

Indeeeed Yabby.. I've yet to hear an answer from our misguided, misinformed "I'll believe it cos it wos on TV" bleeding hearts about this rather curious situation.

IF...they have the money to pay people smugglers THEN.. (logical construct) they have the means of getting a foot hold in countries much closer than Australia. They have MONEY... and money talks in those closer countries.

But I'll make my own point again.

It's not...NOT about people.. it's about POLITICS.....

The facade of high and mighty compassion fleeced out by some here is nothing more than a cloak to disguise a different agenda. Thing is..they have convinced themselves that they actually believe this stuff.

They will latch onto the 'poooooor assylum seekers' thing, and naively believe every syllable of a 'documentary' which lends weight to their political cause..but oooh.. NEVER will they believe a documentary which is contrary eh? They would such a thing a "racist attack on poor defenseless vulnerable human beings"

Or..the other favorite, bringing Christianity into it..

If you claim atheism and criticize their agenda "You are heartless bastard"
If you are a Christian and can see thru their shallowness "You are a vile heartlness bastard AND an uncaring Christian" or something to that effect.

What do these people take us for?

Bronwyn and Romany take the 'legal' tac.. and you wonder why I make so much noise about changing some of our laws? (including our signatory status on some UN conventions and state laws about religious vilification)
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 24 November 2008 10:53:07 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 Gump

I would suggest that the author has perhaps hit the wrong button. I would also suggest that the Christian Brothers in Australia, unlike Cardinal Pell, do not have a hot line to the pope in Rome.

Phil Glendenning is clearly the director of the Edmund Rice Centre. The Edmund Rice Centre may have affiliations with the Worldwide ERC but so what?

http://www.erc.org.au/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=12&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=90

http://www.acu.edu.au/graduate_association/in_honourable_company/mr_phil_glendenning/

http://pipl.com/directory/people/Phil/Glendenning

In my ten years of working daily with the Christian Brothers, there was never the slightest attempt to convert me to their religion. They are fundamentally a teaching order - not missionaries.

The Worldwide ERC to which you and the author refer, states that since 2004, they have donated to:

The American Cancer Society
Autism Society of Greater San Antonio
California Fire Disaster Relief
Chicago Abused Women’s Coalition
ClinicClowns
DC Candlelighters
Father Joe’s Villages
Fisher House
Friends of the World Food Program
Give Kids The World
Greater Ormand Street Hospital for Children
Habitat for Humanity International
John Dickson Foundation for Kidney Cancer Research
The Make-A-Wish Foundation
Oxfam
Project Hope
The Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
SafeNest
Salvation Army
Walk the World
Women’s Bean Project

I do believe your allusions to Rome are somewhat fanciful.

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Monday, 24 November 2008 11:33:39 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 can be described as 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 in Australia’s migration zone 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.

But what happened when a boat carry secondary movement asylum seekers and heading for Australia was intercepted before documentation was destroyed ?

In July 2001 (just before the arrival of the Tampa) 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 that the average per capita income of Afghanistan is around $400 per year.

The boat was intercepted and most were found to be 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.

Note the extremely low acceptance rate of this group of secondary movement asylum seekers when intercepted carrying documentation and processed under UNHCR procedures (as is done in refugee camps), contrasting greatly to the high acceptance rates of secondary movement asylum seekers arriving in Australia without documentation and when processed under Australia’s much more lenient legal procedures.

To illustrate this point further the first mate of the Tampa, Christian Malhaus, testified in a Western Australian court during a people smuggling case that during the rescue of secondary movement asylum seekers by the Tampa he actually saw many throw their documentation (“passport like objects”) overboard before boarding.
Posted by franklin, Monday, 24 November 2008 1:38:54 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
The majority of the world’s asylum seekers are processed by the UNHCR under strict criteria and with limited access to appeal, and if found to be a genuine refugee must wait until resettlement by another country becomes available. In actuality, few resettlement places are available.

By paying thousands and thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in Australia’s migration zone, secondary movement asylum seekers were provided with two great advantages. Firstly, they gained access to Australia’s very more lenient legal regime with multiple levels of appeal, and secondly, after being found by an easier legal regime to require protection they automatically gained residence.

In 2001, the UNHCR reported that 95% of Iranians seeking asylum in Indonesia were rejected as not being in need of protection. By travelling onwards to Australia and by destroying travel / identity documents, Iranian asylum seekers then had a much higher probability of being found to be in need of protection by Australia’s easier legal regime, and were also guaranteed residence. As a consequence every resettlement place taken by such an Iranian asylum seeker resulted in one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for a UNHCR refugee.

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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080728677.html
Posted by franklin, Monday, 24 November 2008 4:04:07 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
Some days his ignorance makes me wonder at how often he's prepared to show it. Some days his foolishness makes me cackle. Most times his hypocrisy takes my breath away.

Here he is berating others for "bringing Christianity into it" - a topic on OLO.

I have, after due consideration, decided that Polycarp really hasn't the insight or self-awareness to see how he twists from one position - bringing Christianity into almost any topic - and then berating people who bring Christianity into a topic.

"What do these people take us for?" he asks in a fit of self-righteous indignation.

Don't worry, folks, tomorrow (or more likely today on another thread) he'll be doing exactly what he slams others for doing. And then he'll weep crocodile tears about ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 24 November 2008 5:31:22 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
So, Porky - the fact that the people who were the subjects of the article were sent back from Australia to Afghanistan to their deaths sits comfortably with you?

<< What do these people take us for? >>

Terms like hypocrite, heartless bastard, xenophobe and odious goose come to mind.

No matter how you and your cohorts try and spin it, the fact is that these unfortunate refugees sought asylum in Australia because they held well-founded fear for their lives in Afghanistan. Under Australia's treaty obligations it was perfectly legal for them to do so. Australian authorities wrongly rejected their refugee status and sent them back to Afghanistan to their deaths.

What a pity we can't deport miscreants like Porky, Mr Right and franklin instead. A few years on Nauru would do them wonders, I reckon.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 6:35:31 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
Bruce Haigh asks, in his post of Friday, 21 November 2008 9:27:47 PM:

"Why is there this hang up [up]on boat people? Far more refugee applicants arrive by plane than by boat."

Is it not the case that if a person arrives, undocumented and unassessed, in Australia, by plane, they will be denied entry and returned from whence they have come at the expense of the airline that brought them here? Is this not the principal point of difference between 'boat people' and refugee applicants arriving by plane?

Some posters have laid stress upon claims of Australia being bound by one form or other of international agreement to accept asylum seekers, and that such asylum seekers have some right to temporary residence, but evade the fact that this relates only to primary movement of asylum seekers. Australia is effectively naturally relatively isolated from primary movement asylum seeking. Virtually all boat entry attempts have been made via Indonesia carrying non-Indonesian passengers, asylum seekers who have already passed through at least one country of refuge within which they should, if genuinely seeking asylum, have sought refugee status.

The point is that few, if any, attempt the long ocean voyage from, say, Iran or Sri Lanka direct to Australia. The reason is obvious: such a voyage would require a truly seaworthy craft and still entail enormous risks to life outside any area of arguably Australian responsibility. By contrast, departing from Indonesia requires only a relatively short ocean voyage, the object of which is to simply reach, say, Ashmore Reef, there, or nearby, to founder and duly be rescued by an Australian vessel. A literal 'guilt trip', if ever there was one; the craft upon which it is made desirably being cheap and unseaworthy.

The relative leniency of the Australian requirements and process appears to be acting as an attractant of secondary movement 'asylum seekers', let alone providing a feather bed for that part of the Australian legal profession that thrives in this environment. Time we plugged this leak in our already full Australian lifeboat, otherwise we might all sink.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 9:01:58 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 whole Tampa episode was used to beat the Howard government over
the head and they are still at it.

Here is a fact that everyone ignores;
When the Tampa picked up the passengers and crew from the sinking
boat they were in the Indonesian Search and Rescue Area.
They were always Indonesia's responsibility.
They had left Indonesia and should have been returned there.
That was the proper course that should have been followed.
If there were refugees amongst them they had passed through several
other countries and should have applied in the first safe country for asylum.
However most seemed to have sold up at home and bought plane tickets
to either Malaysia or Indonesia. They don't sound like someone
running in fear of their lives.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 9:43:45 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
Forrest Gumpp: << Is it not the case that if a person arrives, undocumented and unassessed, in Australia, by plane, they will be denied entry and returned from whence they have come at the expense of the airline that brought them here? >>

Not if they arrive seeking asylum:

<< Australia has an obligation to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of whether they arrive with or without a visa.

As a state party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the definition of ‘refugee’ under the Refugee Convention are not sent back to a country where they risk persecution. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

In addition, Australia has an obligation not to return those who face a real risk of violation of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, articles 6 and 7) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), even if they do not meet the definition of ‘refugee’ under the Refugee Convention. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) also requires Australia to provide special protection to refugee children and children seeking asylum in Australia.

[...]

Some asylum seekers are detained in immigration detention.

Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), asylum seekers who have arrived by unauthorised means, by boat or airport arrival, without a visa, must be kept in immigration detention until they are granted a protection visa, or a bridging visa, or are removed from Australia. As a result, some asylum seekers have been in immigration detention for prolonged periods of time. >>

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 9:47:59 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
*As a consequence every resettlement place taken by such an Iranian asylum seeker resulted in one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for a UNHCR refugee.*

Interesting posts Franklin and the above is my very point.
If we are going to accept refugees, whatever number we agree on,
first past the post sailing here is not the way to select them.
How to best select them is open to debate.

It cannot be denied that most people trying to seek asylum in
Australia, also hope for a better economic future and this might
be one way to do it, if they can get away with it. As was pointed
out, people are travelling a long way to get here and spending
quite a bit of money. If I was fearing for my life, across the
border would do.

I have no doubt that Australia is seen as a soft touch on all this.
Proving that somebody is not genuine in their claims, would be
extremely difficult.

If we have a look at the situation in the third world, places
like the Congo make Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, look like a Sunday
school picnic. There is much misery out there, that is for sure.

We cannot take them all, so we have two options really, to see
that the most deserving are helped. Renegotiate the UN convention
or make life as difficult as possible for those who try and sail
here.

There seem to be no easy options
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 1:41:48 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
Yabby is more than correct when he/she points out that the 1951 Refugee Convention needs renegotiation – or perhaps radical overhaul would be more appropriate. The Convention was designed in a different era and was designed for a different era.

In nearly all emotive matters rhetoric, exaggeration and emotional slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged. It is all too easy to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive words such as “desperate refugees” and “oppression”, “torture” and “inhumanity”, but perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotive rhetoric and present logical and reasoned arguments based on facts.

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “Dark Victory Or Circuit Breaker: Australia And The International Refugee System Post Tampa” detailing the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be downloaded from:

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

Adrienne Millbank also wrote another informative paper entitled “The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention” which can be found at:

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

Salient points made in the paper include the following:

the Convention definition of refugee is outdated, as is its notion of exile as a solution to refugee problems

it confers no right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a signatory country, it imposes no obligation on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens, and it imposes no requirement for burden sharing between states

the asylum channel is providing an avenue for irregular migration and is linked with people smuggling and criminality

the Convention takes no account of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum seekers on receiving countries

there is inequity of outcomes between 'camp' and 'Convention' refugees. Priority is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest need

there is a gross disparity between what Western countries spend on processing and supporting asylum seekers, and what they contribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the world refugee effort
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 3:46:04 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
Some of you silly emotive fools easily bought into Howard's brand of Liberal government propaganda and are consequently scared silly of refugees. In the 50's and 60's you were petrified of communists, in the 80's it was the yellow peril. Now it is boat people.

A measly number of extremely brave or foolhardy people, compared to the approx 49 000 visa overstayers. Those are the rich ones. Fly in on a plane with a passport and money.

The saddest part is that right wing thinkers love screeching 'bleeding hearts' and other very emotive epiteths to those who are not as easily frightened as yourself, or who can actually think for themselves.

Australia brings in some 148 000 migrants per year plus only 13 000 on humanitarian visas. This is so scandelous that I do not know how to explain this to my children.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm#stats

Poor nations are being plundered of their skilled and wealthy citizens, those who are the only ones who could possibly govern and build up their own countries. We are aiding and abetting in the creation and enlarging the huge refugee problem.

If we need more people in this country, they should be refugees, displaced peoples. Not educated, skilled people from other nations.

If we need skilled people then we will damn well train and educate Australians who are already here and refugees ourselves.
Posted by Anansi, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 6:03:09 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
franklin,
Thank you for the link to the 'Age' story as it was most informative.

Do you have any further information as to how these 'secondary movement' asylum seekers get from Pakistan or Iraq to Indonesia and/or on how they are accomodated whilst waiting in Indonesia for the final sea voyage to Aus.

anansi,
I agree with your views on skilled migration, but it is a bit off topic so I will not take it any further.

About our humanatatian intake, I read recently that our intake (you say 13000) is the highest on a per capita basis of any western country. You could explain that to your kids.

It is not a matter of being frightened of 'illegals' It is simply that I believe in a fair go and do not want gate crashers, queue jumpers, con merchants, fraudsters, cheats and liars. The illegals are not what they say they are. I do not accept we should take them in ahead of many other more deserving legitimate refugees.

You should click on the link to the 'Age' that franklin provided,on page 8, you might just learn something.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:46:54 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
Well said inded, Anansi.

To those who persist in wishing to change the subject from Australia's failure to provide asylum to refugees who clearly had "well founded fears" for their lives, no matter how you wish to twist the facts these unfortunate people had every right under Australia's current treaty obligations to get themselves here by whatever means in order to seek asylum.

The fact that they were returned to be murdered is evidence of gross miscalculation on the part of our immigration authorities. We have blood on our hands.

There may well be good reasons for the international treaties and covenants pertaining to refugees and asylum seekers to be reviewed, but until that time and while Australia remains a signatory to them, we are legally and morally bound to provide asylum to bona fide refugees who seek it in Australian territory. To refer to these people as "illegals" and to imply that their reasons for seeking asylum are not genuine is not only offensive, but inhumane.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 6:50:16 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
When will the people who use names and abuse in their pathetic attempts to howl people down provide the legislative tract which says that it is OK for people to jump from country to country to get to Australia in order to claim asylum.

As far as I'm aware, no such legislation exists, and signing any international agreement does not nullify Australia's sovereign rights. No action could, or would, be taken against Australia if it refused all refugees (including those processed by UN officals) henceforth.

We don't have world government yet!
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:01:08 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
Mr Right

Take your proposition to its logical conclusion, we'd all be gone from here except the Indigenous population.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:24:22 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
Anansi, “compared to the approx 49 000 visa overstayers.”

Who get locked up and deported when they are caught

“The saddest part is that right wing thinkers love screeching 'bleeding hearts'”

Ah that sounds like me…..
And I am legal allowed to be a “right wing thinker” in Australia because I waited in line to be vetted and accepted by the Australian Migration services when I applied to migrate to Australia (after waiting 7 years for my qualifications to be deemed “in demand”), unlike those who try to circumvent Australia’s Migration legislation.

“Poor nations are being plundered of their skilled and wealthy citizens,”

So we should ban the migration of people with skills, regardless of their personal aspirations for a better life for themselves and their children instead taking in just the economic and social ‘basket cases’?

“If we need more people in this country, they should be refugees, displaced peoples. Not educated, skilled people from other nations.”

Why – because that way you will feel you have someone who is less than you to look down upon?
(oh, there is nothing worse than an immigrant who does better than someone who got here by accident of birth)

“If we need skilled people then we will damn well train and educate Australians who are already here and refugees ourselves.”

There are a million opportunities in australia and a lot of Australian who seem to prefer to want everything handed to them on a plate, ie… training the untrainable is a non-solution.

From Anansis post I would suggest we desperately need to increase the intaking of skilled migrants. We obviously need to enhance the gene pool, not dilute it with just the flotsam and jetsam of the Oceans.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:53:02 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
The 2001 Australian Electoral Study, which analysed the behaviour of the electorate, surveyed voters at the height of the campaign (“Tampa election”) and found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people, ie: secondary movement asylum seekers.

This majority support held true across eight of nine occupational categories into which respondents were divided. In only one category, the “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.”

Author/journalist Paul Sheehan 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.”

Fast forward from 2001 to the present time. An Essential Research Poll following the Labor Government's announcement that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy indicated that Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards secondary movement asylum seekers. Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said the past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough.

Those in higher income brackets were more likely to believe the policy had been too tough, while those on lower incomes were more inclined to believe it was not tough enough. The poll also reported that a majority of Australians think that the country is now taking too many refugees.

Also refer to commentary by Douglas Kirsner of Deakin University:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23471228-5007146,00.html
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 12:03:52 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
Col Rouge,

Good response to Anansi.Your contributions as an immigrant and now true-blue, fair dinkum Australian are always appreciated.

You will notice that there was no response from anyone to my request for them to back up the 'legality' of country shoppers.

We will never get anything but ignorance and abuse from those who call us 'heartless' and 'offensive' and complain that we are 'over-represented' on OLO because, like all lefties, they do not believe in free speech or democracy. They also have this self-hatred that we don't feel. Unlike them, we like who we are and don't see any reason to rubbish our country or our institutions, which are still the best in the world.

I think it's time to move on.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 1:06:53 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
Mr. Right,

Are you so unaware that you can't understand that you are doing the very thing you complain of.

Listen to yourself: "We will never get anything but ignorance and abuse from those who call us 'heartless' and 'offensive' and complain that we are 'over-represented' on OLO..."

Sounds like ignorance and abuse to me.

"...because, like all lefties, they do not believe in free speech or democracy." Sounds like you don't want free speech for 'all lefties' (however you define such a sweeping term).

"They also have this self-hatred that we don't feel." Your hatred seems targeted more broadly at 'they' who disagree with you.

"Unlike them, we like who we are and don't see any reason to rubbish our country or our institutions, which are still the best in the world." So if you happen to think your country could learn anything from elsewhere, you are full of self-hatred?

Sounds dangerously like 'my country right or wrong'. Which has created a compliant populace willing to believe the most outrageous nationalistic fervour and blind belief in a 'we-are-the-best. Try Germany in the 30s.

If you really love this country, you would understand its faults and try to make it even better.

"I think it's time to move on," you conclude. On that we are agreed
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:14:56 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
First: ColRouge and Mr Right, I was not born in Australia, my parents were never Australians and I have some real experience living and working in third world countries. Not imagined ones like yours.

A huge problem with the billions of dollars in foreign aid, which is largely spent by paying Westerners building, setting up and whatnot is that there is more often than not nobody capable enough to take over. So very many projects fall into disrepair.

The world wide refugee problem cannot be seen isolated from the context of overall immigration by all Western nations. In my view it also cannot be isolated from what all the foreign aid money is spent on.

The Mugabe's of this world and some warlords are doing very well thank you very much. Money keeps flowing in and troublesome people are either moved out or disposed off.

If Australia was drained of its skilled people, there would be nobody left to teach and pass on works of any kind. What would it look like here within a generation or so?

I'm rather surprised by Col's hatred of boat people being such a supporter of personal endevour and innovation, and willingness to take personal responsibility and risk. Funny how you can only apply that to personal local money making activities.

Other than that, Col dear, the children of refugees are on average achieving better economically and academically than those born here from 'true blue aussie parents' or from skilled migrant parents.

Banjo, Australia does not have the highest per capita refugee intake. That honour belongs to that little country Switzerland. Australia doesn't even come second. None of the European countries is a country made up of migrants. Seeing Australia is a country with a very large migrant intake that is disgraceful.

And why do any of you assume that refugees are useless, unteachable lowly beings?

Have the lot of you forgotten Australia's history, or are you just pig ignorant of it? Refugees have contributed greatly to this nation .
Posted by Anansi, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:02:35 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
*That honour belongs to that little country Switzerland.*

Funny that you should say that. All the Swiss whom I have talked
to are absolutaly pissed off at the social problems caused by so
many asylum seekers, from crime to you name it.

In fact we can learn a great deal from Europe's experiment with
opening the floodgates and the huge problems encountered. Its
not a happy story. At the moment, they are dreaming up any
way they can, to shut the doors closed again.

How many refugees that Australia accepts is open to debate to
all Australians. My point is that the number should not
be unlimited and that those accepted, should be selected by
a more equitable method then whoever sails here.

The UN convention is out of date and needs changing.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:21:24 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
Goodness, Mr. Right, from someone with claims to pragmatism , the following para. seems far more emotive than anything posted by those you call lefties. : “We will never get anything but ignorance and abuse from those who call us 'heartless' and 'offensive' and complain that we are 'over-represented' on OLO because, like all lefties, they do not believe in free speech or democracy. They also have this self-hatred that we don't feel. Unlike them, we like who we are and don't see any reason to rubbish our country or our institutions, which are still the best in the world.” Very purple prose indeed.

I’ve not abused you. Nor am I ignorant of the issue. I did indeed, however, suggest that those who have no knowledge of the realities behind the statistics and figures are poorly qualified to judge those who have.

And I see you have cunningly outed me as a dreaded country hopper? Almost as astute as the canny group who uncovered me as Chinese CCP spy. The various bits and pieces of my life which led me to have intimate knowledge of more things than I ever wished, are no secret and have informed my posts throughout the time I’ve been on OLO.

I am also highly amused at the note of exasperation from one who continuously sets himself up as treading a much more elevated moral ground than anyone else, when he says “Bronwyn and Romany take the 'legal' tac.” Thus making us sound as though we are both cunning, Machiavellian shysters who will stop at nothing to produce alternative viewpoints.

It appears that as more people condemn our resident Colonel Blimps for their outmoded ideas and crusty dispositions, the more they race into print to prove themselves very caricatures of that dying breed.

Anansi - behind you all the way, girl.
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 27 November 2008 1:06:45 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
I've already provided a link to the Australian government website that details the treaties and conventions under which it is perfectly for bona fide refugees to seek asylum in Australia, regardless of how they arrive here or from whence they come. Mr Right is therefore being obtuse, or as Anansis says, "pig-ignorant".

Regardless of how some people regard Australia's current treaty obligations, the fact remains that Immigration authorities obviously erred in denying refuge to those unfortunate asylum seekers who were returned to Afghanistan to be murdered.

I think that they also obviously erred in determining that Col Rouge's qualifications were in necessary in Australia - it seems to me that we have too many hateful bean counters here anyway. Besides which, as Anansi also suggested, if we need more bean counters there is absolutely no reason why we can't train our own.

Indeed, we could train refugees in accountancy, for that matter.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 27 November 2008 7:41:14 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 Anansi character calls us “pig ignorant”. Somebody claiming not to be Australian and seeming very proud of the fact is the pig ignorant one, badmouthing our country as he/she is. His/her claim about contributions of refugees is also dumb. Refugees are a burden on the economy and environment. We don’t need them.

He/she is, perhaps, confusing refugees with decent migrants who have contributed.

Anansi, it’s well past time you started looking around with another Third World country.

Romany,

You have opened your big mouth again. Even though you didn’t have the guts to answer my question after telling us everybody who disagreed with you is “obtuse”. You are all mouth and no substance, and calling people obtuse is abuse.

As for your knowledge, we have only your word for it. You recently proved that you know nothing about Chinese food production, even though you claim to live there; so anything you claim to know must be taken with a grain of salt.

I did NOT SAY THIS: “…he says “Bronwyn and Romany take the 'legal' tac.” I remember seeing it, but it was not posted by me. How slack are you?

There are a few people like you on OLO, claiming all sorts of knowledge, experience and adventures. For all we know your claims could be, and probably are, total bulldust.

CJ Morgan,

I haven’t responded to your arrogant drivel for some time because I think that you are a sad poor idiot and knuckle-dragger. Like the nitwits above, you understand only the same talk you hand out to others who have the temerity to express an opinion here. So here you are. You are a sad, poor idiot, apparently embittered by personal failures and shortcomings. If you are trying to prove something, give up. You will never succeed.

My final words to all are: illegals should be turned straight around; all immigration, including any refugees, to Australia should cease. I will no longer respond to abusive cranks and end up like them.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:45:16 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
Anansi “I have some real experience living and working in third world countries. Not imagined ones like yours.”

I have lived, in first world countries, UK, Australia, USA (where they have an entry “hurdle”) and visited a number of third world countries on business and vacations, nothing I write has anything to do with “imagined countries”.

“If Australia was drained of its skilled people”

That is called a “fatuous hypothetical” and not worthy responding to

“I'm rather surprised by Col's hatred of boat people being such a supporter of personal endevour and innovation,”

Because I believe in and respect the rule of law and the right of Australians to decide who will come here.

The alternative is Anarchy and (ultimately) the destruction of the fabric which makes life here worthwhile (and incidentally, the most likely reason why Australia would ever be drained of its skilled people).

“Other than that, Col dear, the children of refugees are on average achieving better economically and academically than those born here from 'true blue aussie parents' or from skilled migrant parents.”

I expect you to prove that statement before I will accept it as accurate and demand you distinguish between those “refugees” who came "LEGALLY", with visas and those who came “ILLEGALLY” in boats or any other means, intent on circumventing the Australian Migration regulations.

“Have the lot of you forgotten Australia's history, or are you just pig ignorant of it? Refugees have contributed greatly to this nation .:”

No you and the likes of CJMoron regularly remind me of “pig ignorance”.

I support acceptance of refugees into this country, following consideration of their applications and their “worthiness”.

Australians have a legal right to decide if someone is unsuited for settlement in Australia.

Example, I had to have a chest X-ray to verify I did not suffer from tuberculosis, a socially contagious disease. I had to also undergo a police check to my character.

Those who arrive illegally have supplied no certification to the status of their personal health nor the quality of their character (Somalian pirates /criminal past etc).
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:55:27 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
Yabby, to compare any European country's demographics and immigration with Australia is like comparing apples with oranges to use a cliche.

European countries are crowded and are not made up of a migrant population as is Australia.

Switzerland HALF the size of Tasmania with mountains where habitation is not possible has a population of over 7.5 million inhabitants. Nevertheless 35,700 acquired citizenship in 2004.

The Netherlands: HALF the size of Tasmania and the most densely populated, pop: 16.6 million has about 560 000 asylum seekers. Makes Australia's incessant whining about being overrun rather pitiful don't you think?

Austria: HALF the size of Tasmania with a pop. of 8.2 million of which 3% are Turks.

I can go on.

Many of you are keen to classify somebody as being 'left-wing' of 'bleeding-heart' when another viewpoint or question is raised. What never ceases to amaze me is how readily those who call themselves 'conservative' accept verbatim what a person who you give blanket authority says to you.

Any group, whatever its political spectrum or focus, comes from a particular viewpoint. Their mission is to recruit followers and supporters. Which is fine, but the onus remains on the potential follower/supporter to determine personally that what is claimed is the whole story.

Refugees over the ages have made wonderful Australian citizens. They came here because they did not have the choice to remain in their homeland. Largely they will never have a potential 'choice' to go 'back home'. Australia is it.

Australia is part of a global economy. We pride ourselves on taking part in global politics. The enormous refugee problem is also our problem. The refugees did not appear from a vacuum.

We are a nation made up of immigrants. There is an enormous pool of talent amongst refugees. Their perserverance, determination to survive, resourcefulness and desperate willingness to make a peaceful and stable home to my mind makes for excellent potential fellow citizens.
Posted by Anansi, Thursday, 27 November 2008 1:25:37 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
*Yabby, to compare any European country's demographics and immigration with Australia is like comparing apples with oranges to use a cliche.*

Not at all, because the problems caused by too many refugees in
Europe are not about space, they are social problems. Holland has
huge problems and is taking drastic steps to reduce asylum seekers.

I remind you that most refugees coming to Australia, crowd into
the cities of Sydney or Melbourne, they don't go out in into
the desert, where all the space is.

*The enormous refugee problem is also our problem. The refugees did not appear from a vacuum.*

Last time I checked, there were around 20 million refugees. Fact
is that Australia cannot take them all. The solution is to find
solutions in their own countries, for there will always be new
wars, new refugees from some conflict zone.

How many million do you think that Australia should accept?

The Greens will tell you that we should apply our bleeding hearts
to the refugee problem, yet they are concerned about the affect of
humanity on the environment. Fact is that as Australia increases
its human population, the pressures on the environment will grow.

So how many millions do the Greens think that we should accept?

Any answers from those Greens supporters?
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 November 2008 1:53:31 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
I fully appreciate Phil Glendenning’s passion for finding out what has happened to returned asylum seekers. But there seem to be a bunch of factors missing from the story, that all need to be considered if the it is to be put into its proper perspective.

1. If strong border protection had not been exercised by Howard, and with urgency at the time of the Tampa, what do you think would have happened? We would have had a much much greater influx of desperate people, and very quickly from August 2001 on. Do you think that the determination of refugee status would have been better or worse, more lenient or harsher if thousands more people had been involved, with thousands more on the way?

2. Do you think that if a much larger and/or ongoing asylum seeker influx had occurred, that there wouldn’t have been a massive outcry from the Australian public, and that the Howard government wouldn’t have survived beyond the following election, after which there would have been a massive tightening of border protection, with a much harder attitude taken with asylum seekers?

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 27 November 2008 2:21:21 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
3. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Australian authorities didn’t do their damnedest to properly determine all asylum seekers’ asylum status? Are they suggesting people were knowingly sent back to very precarious life-threatening situations? Isn’t it a case of best judgements being made on the information available at the time? Afterall, most asylum seekers were accepted as refugees, with the criteria for their determination being very much softer than for those that come to Australia via our offshore refugee programs. Is there any reason in the world why authorities would have sent people back to places that that they thought were gravely dangerous?

4. Refugee determination for many asylum seekers was notoriously difficult. It was extremely hard to know what to believe, what significance to place of different factors, etc. Mistakes could so easily be made. And then it is far too easy to get terribly hung up on a small number of unfortunate stories that really do fall right at the worst end the spectrum.


We mustn’t lose sight of the absolute need to maintain strong border control.

We must put a whole damn lot more effort into global refugee issues. We’ve GOT to increase our international aid expenditure to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP and focus it on the most needy of life-threatening refugee-generating circumstances, and on sustainability.

And within a vastly reduced immigration program, we should be increasing our offshore refugee intake, to at least double the current level….and certainly no more than net zero immigration, which would be something less than 30 000 per annum.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 27 November 2008 2:24:00 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
Tut tut, Mr. Right. Such vehemence?

“Romany,

You have opened your big mouth again.” Why yes, Mr. Right. Look closely at the title of this ‘zine.

Had I had said you were all mouth and no substance, or a sad knuckle-dragger and an idiot I could understand your choler. The word “obtuse” – lacking perception or sensitivity – is hardly abusive. You yourself consign those with sensitivity to the ranks of the bleeding hearts.

“ You recently proved that you know nothing about Chinese food production, even though you claim to live there; so anything you claim to know must be taken with a grain of salt.”

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but your superior knowledge comes second hand from a three week trip your non-Chinese speaking wife made to China, does it not?

I however, have never claimed to be an expert on Chinese agriculture. In response to your news that ALL food in China is grown using human ordure as fertilizer I merely pointed out that this does not apply where I live. I didn’t deny such methods were used, even mentioning that such practices, common in other countries, may indeed pertain to parts of China.

What on earth was it about that eminently reasonable statement that caused you to subsequently cast doubts upon my every utterance? It appears like a most bizarre over-reaction to me.

”I did NOT SAY THIS: …” I know perfectly well you didn’t. I was addressing someone else who feels their morality is superior - unaware that you regarded yourself in this way.

“There are a few people like you on OLO, claiming all sorts of knowledge, experience and adventures” Indeed there are. We find it hard to believe that there are people who enjoy staying in one place and receiving all their opinions on life via the television. But hey, life really IS a box of chocolates, huh?

I, at least, have never publicly discounted the views of such people as bull dust.
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 27 November 2008 5:46:45 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
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:27:47 PM:

"Perhaps we should only take refugees and scrap the social engineering contained in our immigration program."

What social engineering would that have been, I wonder? What interests are seen as having been advanced as a consequence of the Australian migration program?

Accepting, on this admission, that the Australian immigration program was conceived as a social engineering project, could it be that the program is seen as having failed its would-be engineers, and that those same would-be social engineers now need to revert to an open slather system over which Australia will have no effective control? Such is what the boat-people traffic, until the Tampa incident and the 'Pacific Solution', threatened to rapidly become.

Thanks for setting me right, dickie, regarding that link in the article to the Edmund Rice Centre. I guess I was just bearing in mind what other posters had claimed in related threads, that many secondary asylum seekers held professional qualifications. Seeing Worldwide ERC, an international professional placement organisation, as the destination of that link had me jumping to conclusions both as to its interest in secondary movement asylum seekers as a recruitment pool, and to some connection through the Christian Brothers with the worldwide interests of Roman Catholicism.

That link also called to mind an interview conducted by Andrew Denton with a now-retired Catholic priest, in which the subject of secondary movement asylum seekers and mandatory detention arose. That priest had expressed surprise that it was an issue upon which, for the first time in his experience, he had had his authority directly challenged by some parishioners. I guess I just thought I had seen a connection. Mustn't get too fanciful.

The article ignores the fact that Australia is effectively naturally relatively isolated from primary movement asylum seeking. As part of this evasion it tries to guilt trip Australia into taking on responsibilities for asylum seekers from which it is legally and properly exempt.

The article, in attempting to institute a political vendetta, really seeks to challenge Australian sovereignty.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 28 November 2008 6:47:54 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 my last post I said:"illegals should be turned straight around; all immigration, including any refugees, to Australia should cease."

I said this for many reasons, not the least being that two thirds of Australia is uninhabitable (the know-all foreigner, Anansi is not aware of this) because of the environment. Most people live around the coast, and most immigrants and so-called refugees flock to those heavily populated regions also. NSW and Victoria are short of water and will be for the foreseeable future. Qld is typical of Australia, with 'droughts and flooding rains', and the flood waters go out to sea.

Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year, darling of the wet left and overall climate change alarmist said years ago that the ultimate population is 13 million. We now have 20 million plus, and both major political parties are determined to increase the population; in the case of the current vandals, at 200,000 per year, as part of their homage to greedy big business.

Unemployment is on the rise. The mining boom is not a boom anymore, with business experts advising that jobs are dropping off as the boom levels out.

These facts make the influx of people to Australia suicidal.

At the very least, the mantra of Australia being a “nation made up or immigrants” is boring and meaningless. It’s also quite stupid to call people who descend from the first fleet ‘immigrants’. Most migrants were brought to Australia after WW11 when they were needed. Migrants are not needed now.

To those people with an unchangeable mindset on ‘immigrant country’ nonsense, I say, “So what?” How does this mean we should continue to take migrants we do not need; migrants who are causing increased harm to our environment and putting a strain on our infrastructure, water supplies, power supplies; pushing up housing prices and rents, all to make a few rich people richer while the average citizen pays and pays for things they neither want nor need.

The fools screeching on behalf of illegal arrivals and maybe-refugees are trouble making anarchists, always on the prod to cause trouble.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:21:20 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
Mr Right “Your contributions as an immigrant and now true-blue, fair dinkum Australian are always appreciated.”

I am humbled by your appreciation.

I consider myself lucky to have been accepted to join this nation and know the contribution I make is valued by those who pay (generously) for my business services,

That despite CJMorons piffling denigration of my credential “if we need more bean counters there is absolutely no reason why we can't train our own.”

To comment on CJMorons point,

whilst Australia does produce large numbers of “bean counting” accountants, I use one to do my tax returns for me, we, obviously, do not produce sufficient who combine the skills sets which I sell, otherwise I would not be able to negotiate a 3 day a week job paying a 6 digit income and leaving me time to pursue some even more profitable ventures, which will shortly employ a few more folk, at a time when every job in Australia is precious.

Further, I chose Australia and Australia chose me.

I have every sympathy for people who are stricken by a war torn homeland but believe the solution is to fix the problem in that homeland, rather than blindly import criminals and those carrying contagious diseases into our social system,structures and practices which are alien to them.

I am compassionate enough to believe we should accept properly documented and accredited refugees.

I am sensible enough to believe we must impose life bans on anyone who arrogantly and with contempt for our rights, attempts to gain residency through deception or evasion of the migration officers, who are employed to protect us and uphold the statutes which we elect politicians to enact upon our behalf.

So Anansi made a great show of declaring how

“the children of refugees are on average achieving better economically and academically than those born here from 'true blue aussie parents' or from skilled migrant parents.”

And I asked that such a statement be proven, however, distinguishing those from refugees with visas and those from queue-jumping illegal entrants……. We are all still waiting.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 28 November 2008 10:20:58 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 Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention” by Monash University academic Adrienne Millbank (url given previously) provides an appendix listing UN Member States and their status as being either Signatories or Non-signatories to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Afghanistan is listed as being a non-signatory, however, listed as being signatories in the immediate region of Afghanistan are the following countries: Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan Turkey and Turkmenistan.

The failed asylum seekers featuring in the documentary “A Well Founded Fear” travelled long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting in order to seek refuge in Australia, even though several signatories are located in the immediate region of Afghanistan.

The asylum seekers did not enter Australia’s migration zone and their claims were duly process under unhcr criteria, some by Australian immigration officials and some by UNHR officials. The asylum seekers were duly returned to their countries of origin after their claims were found to be unsubstantiated. The documentary lacked any evidence to prove that the process was flawed or the convention was incorrectly applied.

After the return of the asylum seekers some years passed and the asylum seekers are again claiming to be in need of protection. If the asylum seekers felt their lives were again being threatened and in great danger could not the immediate solution have been for themselves and their families to have travelled to one of the several countries (listed above)in the immediate region and applied for protection.

Switzerland is noted by Anansi as having the highest per capita refugee intake. In September 2006 a referendum was held in Switzerland, the result being that Swiss voters approved legislation for restriction on asylum seekers. Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger wrote “There can be no argument about it: A good two-thirds of the voters said yes to the new asylum law. The discontent is too great about foreigners who deceive the authorities to get admission to Switzerland, the paradise of prosperity.” Perhaps the referendum result was recognition by the Swiss electorate of the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 28 November 2008 11:20:00 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
Mr Right, what bitterness. Doesn’t make for convincing arguments though.

Don’t you find it just a little bit silly jumping to wild and fanciful conclusions about posters? Stick to the arguments. Not make up weird fantasies about the posters.

ColR can do that too.

The one and only passport that I can obtain is Navy blue depicting a coat of arms with a kangaroo on the left and an emu on the right sides of a shield depicting the badges of the six states of Australia. How many different passports can you and Col have?

My eldest son, by the way, is serving in the Australian armed forces. My second son spent a year in the magnificent outback as a very hard working jackeroo (often 10 – 12 hours physical hard work days) he has a certificate III in (Cattle) agricultural science to prove it. He has a gift with breaking in brumbies and yardwork. My daughter is a top scoring high school student whose ambition it is to represent Australia overseas. My children are first generation Aussies.

Col, you know the hoops you had to jump through? Imagine for just a moment that some of that documentation, police clearance etc. have to come from a country where the registration/government buildings (at least there were registrations) have been burned down and the nearest country Australia can get a criminal check from has nothing to do with the country you came from. Imagine just for a moment that because of your place of birth and capricious changes within a local government you have suddenly been rendered stateless. How big were your hoops? Mine were enormous, yet my professional qualifications are Australian.

How did the Greens/left make it to this debate? Are we talking about the total numbers of immigrants or is this about refugees, Australia’s paranoia about them and the fate of refugees who have been sent back?

Again, research Australia’s truly extraordinary history, starting with the reasons why Australia was first colonized. It is one of the most amazing stories in the world.
Posted by Anansi, Friday, 28 November 2008 11:50:19 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
According to Franklin, the Swiss actually got a vote on the matter of asylum seekers. We Australians had not say whatsoever. Franklin also reminds us of where this you beaut refugee convention comes from: a different world, with different people - far different from the country shoppers we now have.

Anansi,

Good luck to your children; but they are not doing anything other kids have done and, being Australian born, they have probably learned more from their peers than they ever did from their not-very-pleasant parent.

It's interesting to hear that two of them have removed themselves from your clutches, and the third one is also looking forward to doing something overseas.

They have every chance of turning out fine, despite your poor attidude to the country whic took you in.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 28 November 2008 1:40:17 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
Anansi “Not make up weird fantasies about the posters.

ColR can do that too.”

No fantasies, except expecting you to justify your claim to the ability of refugees exceeding all others… my fantasy to expect you to validate your arrogant and unproven comment.

“How many different passports can you and Col have?”

I have one passport, Australian and could apply for renewal of my English passport, if I wanted to, but cannot be bothered. “Citizenship” in UK is, to those born in England, not a government award, it is an irrevocable birth right and the history of Australia and UK means different rules apply to ex-Britons versus non-Britons.

“How big were your hoops? ….”

My initial qualifications are English and recognized the world over, including Australia and I have since added an Aussie qualification to them. But I still had to wait for 7 years for my ‘skills’ to be in demand.

I came with wife and 2 ½ year old daughter too… I do not ponder the relative difficulty of my passage, other than, I was greeted by the Migration Officer with the words “3 of the chosen people”.

BUT I was not given a “free pass” (like the boat folk) and have never expected one.

Those who wash up on the shore have gone through NO HOOPS or tests to their “suitability” as applicants, I DID.


By trying to evade migration services they have proved their bad character, making them “unsuitable for settlement”.

And might well be the sort of individual who we would reject because of criminal past or contagious disease anyway.

I remember Castro, that old left wing piece of scum when he opened his borders to those Cubans who wanted to leave to go to USA cleaned out his gaols too and let the thieves, drug peddlars and murderers out among those who were upright citizens.

And my children are both tax contributors to the commonwealth. They expect nothing for free and do not go around in gangs, stabbing people, as is common with some of our Somalian and other ethnic minorities.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 28 November 2008 2:32:17 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 Rouge says of his children:

"They expect nothing for free and do not go around in gangs, stabbing people, as is common with some of our Somalian and other ethnic minorities."

If they did, would Col Rouge put it down to their race, national background or ethnicity?

Since they don't, is Col claiming that's because they are members of "the chosen people"?
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 28 November 2008 2:58:06 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
Gary Klintworth is a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal and wrote an informative paper entitled “Woomera: Hell Holes and Mandatory Detention of Illegal Immigrant”. An exert:

“Most Australians want order and control over the illegal immigration business. And it is a business. The illegal immigrants detained in Woomera, Port Hedland, Curtin or elsewhere in Australia are part of a people smuggling racket estimated at $US10 billion per annum. Some illegal immigrants are fleeing oppressive regimes. Most however are seeking a better way of life and are prepared to pay a lot of money to get smuggled into desirable destinations like Australia, Canada, the United States and countries in Western Europe such as Britain.”

“According to Afghan community leaders, many Pakistanis coming to Australia falsely claim to be Afghanis. They said the Afghan community in Australia did not want positions for genuine Afghan refugees to be filled by people from other countries claiming to be Afghans. Mean¬while, some who claim to be from Iraq are in fact citizens of other countries in the Middle East.”

The paper can be downloaded at:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=45

Investigative journalist Russell Skelton spent some time in Afghanistan and wrote articles on Afghans, people smuggling and the Bakhtiyari case. An exert:

“The story is all too familiar. Ayub's uncle switched identities before leaving Kabul on false travel documents for Indonesia: a new name for a new life. Asked why so many people had left the district, the 28-year-old hotel owner said: "It was for a better life. The drought had finished them, crops had failed too many times and there was no food. Talibs were a problem, but the real reason was that there was nothing left for them; those with money had to find a better life. My uncle said the Talibs had wrecked Kabul and made it impossible to make money."

Note that seeking a better life is not recognised by the 1951 Refugee Convention as a reason for the granting of protection as a refugee.

The article can be downloaded at:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html
Posted by franklin, Friday, 28 November 2008 3:27:52 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
Mr Right. What the hell is wrong with you?

While your remarks to me were quite unfathomably over-reactionary, your last comment directed at Anansi was unforgivable and way, way out of line.

Is this some kind of game to you, perhaps? Do you not realise that while your ego might be comforted by sitting down after a hard day and trying, like a nasty child, to push your boundaries, the other end of that big box you are playing with is connected to other peoples lives?

What do you think singles you out from other mature adults and gives you the right to ignore all the societal codes which are ingrained in the rest of us? Where on earth do you get the idea that you have the right to behave like a five-year-old and just blurt out the first inane and childishly spiteful thought which comes into your head? For gods' sake, man, show some maturity.

Your comments to Anansi were pure playground-talk and I, being a grown-up, know what pain they would have caused. Act like an adult man and aplogise and stop being so bloody silly.
Posted by Romany, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:08:53 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
Romany,

There is nothing wrong with me, and you don’t decide what is “forgivable” and what is not. I will not be lectured by a renegade living in China, with the arrogance to make any comment at all about Australia.

As I said, you are a country hopper, without identity and allegiance, but with a huge mouth and a belief you can plonk yourself down anywhere and dictate terms. You are the one playing the games; and calling an elderly man “childish” and “immature” shows just what a loose-lipped ratbag you are.

That, and your allegation of my supposed ignoring “…all the societal codes which are ingrained in the rest of us…” seeks to paint me as someone less that human, and is the abusive hallmark of an arrogant person who has run out of arguments and throws a tantrum in sheer frustration.

For someone who has smugly trumpeted in the past that she doesn’t “bother to respond to…” you certainly turn nasty when you are cornered, and seem very willing to react to anybody not fooled by your holier-than-thou attitude.

I have no intention of bothering with you again. But anytime you wish to vent your spleen, I suppose a person like me – lacking societal codes adhered to by the great Romany and “the rest of us” – is a good target for you. So, be my guest: use me as the baddy or black hat to make yourself feel good. You need all the help you can get
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 29 November 2008 9:48:36 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
Spikey “If they did, would Col Rouge put it down to their race, national background or ethnicity?

Since they don't, is Col claiming that's because they are members of "the chosen people"?”

The comment which is the source of Spikey’s dissent is based on common articles in newspapers and actual fact.

We have become used, in Melbourne at least to hearing about ethnic gangs of youths where Samoan’s battle with Somalian’s for gang control of railway stations.

Ask the police in Dandenong about it.

Similarly a gang of Lebanese youths were recently convicted of a series of rape attacks on Australian girls and their Imams regularly spout on about uncovered meat and other offensive and what amount to bigoted attitudes.

Asian gangs attacking people with swords, causing serious and permanent injuries.

Attiudes of an over developed sense of self-entitlement engendered by the sort of people who think they can just turn up in a boat and demand asylum because they want it and then sign up on the dole and expect this society to fund their polygamous breeding habits.

My personal view is anyone who is an immigrant and breaks the law, seriously to go to prison, should be deported upon the conclusion of their sentence, no debate, no second chances, like the habitual burglar who, a couple of years ago, ended up back in Serbia.

Better these purveyors of violence and dishonesty, who disrespect our Australian values are shot or blown up as a consequence of being deported back to the environment that spawned them, than they should be free to gratify their heinous and cowardly desires on decent citizens of this country.

Now Spikey, got anymore of your gratuitous comments you want to share, take another swipe, I am happy to respond to any of your mediocre summations and asides
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 29 November 2008 2:05:55 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
Col Rouge,

I like you deportation idea. Spikey is one of the self-haters whom I refuse to acknowledge because he posts utter rubbish. I undertook not to upset him any more after his last spray, but he still thinks I am interested in his opinions of my opinions. I have added Romany to the list along with CJ Moron (I hope I'm not breaching your copyright on Moron).

These three spend most of their time criticising people with whom they disagree, rather than expressing their own opinions first. I know, as I'm sure you do, that many people on OLO disagree with us and I have no problem with that. But when they start name-calling, instead of just sharing their views - which is all they have to do to express disagreement - I'm perfectly capable of throwing a few names about, too.

Some among us might have cracked onto the fact that Mr. Right has been around for a long time under a previous moniker. I changed identities, with Graham's OK, to make a fresh start: I was falling into the traps set by these nitwits and their name-calling and foolishly responding in kind.

What I find incredible is that anyone who is against allowing illegal entrants to even set foot on our soil; who believes that we now have too many people here for the good of the country, must be ‘heartless’,’ lacking in compassion’, ‘immature’, (in my case, even though I was born during WW11, and grew up during large intakes of immigrants who worked on the Snowy Mountains and other projects where they were needed, including my own part of the country), and even downright ‘bad’, ‘nasty’ or a ‘white supremacists’.

My ‘new start’ attempt clearly didn’t work; I don’t have Col Rouge’s patience in dealing with nincompoops. I might even be enabling them by reacting to what is really their vile, unfair baiting.

My ‘new’ new start is: no more engaging with other posters for me. There really isn’t much point in it anyway
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 29 November 2008 4:58:22 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
Mr Right,
There are some on OLO that I do not bother to respond to also but I know that when they start name calling they have no more to offer in debate.

There are also others that, even if I generally disagree with them, I respect their right to have their opinion. I do not always agree with what you or Col Rouge say, but do often.

I am very interested in your opinion on all sorts of issues and many times your views have given me reason to look at an issue differently or has increased my knowledge on the matter.

On this particular thread, I have found franklins posts most informative.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 29 November 2008 7:22:15 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
Col Rouge,

Ethnic gangs in Melbourne, eh? Are they ever Irish, English or Scots? Maybe Welsh?

"My personal view is anyone who is an immigrant and breaks the law, seriously to go to prison, should be deported upon the conclusion of their sentence, no debate, no second chances..."

But not, I presume, when they are Irish, English, Scots or Welsh? What will we do with Aboriginal gangs? They won't be able to be "deported back to the environment that spawned them".

Mr. Right,

You are 100% wrong with such a basic thing as my gender, so we can't place much store in your other comments. "Spikey is one of the self-haters whom I refuse to acknowledge because he posts utter rubbish."

Well actually, I have great self-esteem. And as for you refusing to acknowledge me, well what sort of contradiction is that when you spend so much energy criticising me?

I see you've changed your name Mr Right. And that you admit it hasn't worked. That much at least you are Right about. The only other thing you're Right about is your political prejudice.
Posted by Spikey, Saturday, 29 November 2008 9:22:57 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 found Mr Right's comments towards myself quite extraordinary. I'm rather disappointed that remarks like this are left on a forum like this.

Mr Right, my children and my relationship with them is very precious to me. They did not come easily to me. So, the fact that I became a parent at all I view as my biggest responsibility and joy in life.

Romany, thank you. It really stung, only because it was directed at my children and our relationship. All three whom I'm enormously proud of. Mr Right obviously has a very high regard for the youth of today in Australia, considering he credits their peers for undoing my poor influence and becoming contributing young adults.

Other than that, I'm in good company, because you too are the object of his pathetic vitriol. What a sad example he makes.

On this site there are people who we do disagree with. That is the purpose of a forum like this. To examine our beliefs and opinions and to modify or change them.

ColR, wonderful for you that you've never had to make the choice between Australian citizenship and your previous one, by having to give that one up. I actually think that that is the way it should be. A citizenship should be a birth right and many countries view it that way, but not all.

Australia is a country too that allows dual nationality. So, if I'd kept my previous nationality, the irony is that my children would have both: European and Australian nationality.

My comment re children born of immigrants is from an article I read in a couple of newspapers quite a while back extrapolating findings from the last Australian Census. I'm a full time working woman and have not had time to find any links for you.

As to the total number of immigrants this country should take, I agree we should have a discussion on this, but that is a seperate issue to the one we're debating here.
Posted by Anansi, Sunday, 30 November 2008 5:31:34 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, or maybe that should be cork-screw (spikey but “twisted”)

“But not, I presume, when they are Irish, English, Scots or Welsh?”

What basis do you have for presuming that?

Having said it you can now direct me to any posting I have ever made which considers the rights and responsibilities of ex GB migrants to Australia as anything different to the rights and responsibilities of anyone from elsewhere in the world.

Maybe I could just quote you “You are 100% wrong ….. so we can't place much store in your other comments. "


In short, your scurrilous assertion toward racism is more likely a projection of your own retarded values than anything I have ever written. I suggest you take your insufferable apologist attitudes and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

In future, you are free to quote me, verbatim, but are never ever free to “presume” anything about me, especially of such a vicious polemic nature but having read other posts by you I doubt whether a limited intellect, such as yours, will ever understand.

Anansi “ColR, wonderful for you that you've never had to make the choice between Australian citizenship and your previous one,”

It is not a problem to me, having worked hard to get here, my loyalty is solely to Australia. Anyone who arrives here with alternate commitment will never make a good migrant or citizen.

“My comment re children born of immigrants is from an article I read in a couple of newspapers quite a while back extrapolating findings from the last Australian Census. I'm a full time working woman and have not had time to find any links for you.”

The internet is a wonderful thing. When I make statements such as yours, I tend to support them with data.
Therefore, in absence of you saying so, I accept you to cannot defend your assertion and relinquish any claim to its veracity.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 1 December 2008 7:59:28 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
I cannot let Anansi’s “I'm rather disappointed that remarks like this are left on a forum like this” go without one last comment.

It is clear that anyone who would be disappointed that my remarks are “left on” OLO does not have the slightest inkling of what freedom of speech is all about. I have never hinted that the people who constantly ridicule me and others with similar views should have their remarks deleted. Australia is a democracy, and this site is a democratic one. This is fortunate for people like Anansi who believe their own spin on everything, and who also believe the minority of Australians on OLO who pander to them.

I could just as easily say that I am disappointed that insulting remarks and whinging about my country are not removed. But, thankfully, we have most people not born in Australia who know which side their bread is buttered on; and, it is good for rude immigrants to get reactions which might set them on the track for a better life in their adopted country. OLO gives them the opportunity to test out their feelings in safety. Some of the things said about Australia and Australians would earn them a smack in the mouth if said in person. Not that I approve of violence, but malcontents who bash Australia and Australians should take more notice of what is said here (honestly and safely) than they should of manufactured slogans and “Australian” beliefs and ethics spouted by politicians and loud-mouthed minorities.

The ‘easy-going’ nature of Australians is one of the many myths about us and, as things get tougher, the lunatic immigration and ‘refugee’ policies of governments will come under the scrutiny of people a lot nastier than the girls around here think I am.
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 1 December 2008 4:25:52 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
Col Rouge,

My, you were upset weren't you? Do you feel better after getting all that bile out of your system? I tend to think that when people throw abuse about they are angry at having been caught with a compromising opinion.

Now then, the basis for assuming that you never post any comments about British ethnic gangs is that you simply don't. And never have. Yet you are happy to comment negatively about 'ethnic gangs' from other national backgrounds. Why is that so?

Perhaps you could mount a reasoned argument why you find it necessary to mention ethnicity at all when the issue is gang behaviour?

I am optimistic that you will provide an authentic response in the light of your comment later in your post: " When I make statements such as yours [another poster], I tend to support them with data."
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 1 December 2008 5:42:22 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
ColR, why do you suppose that the members of the ethnic gangs that you referred to are in any way shape or form related to the issue of refugees, whether arriving here via the humanitarian quota system or as boat people?

You cite no references to support that argument.

Why isn't it likely that their parents arrived here as persons with much needed skills in the ordinary lot of immigrants who have made no claim to refugee status? You know, the ones that Australia chose because it was decided they were the desired kind of immigrants?

During a very quick search here is one reference from me:

"And the adult children of non-English speaking immigrants outperform all others in their peer group in education and professional qualification. Incidentally, their children, the third generation, return to the national average."
http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/Projects__and__Activities/symposia/2004_symposium/documents/keynote_address

Mr Right, hope getting that anger off your chest made you feel better.

As to opinions, how would you react if I made insulting comments re your mother's child rearing skills resulting in a poor outcome regarding your good self to support my argument and negate yours?

You'd be rightfully furious, because it has nothing to do with your opinions re refugees.

I'm actually very interested why there are people who have such negative feelings towards refugees.

I have never been a refugee, but my parents were after WWII. (Not to Australia, but to Europe) So, the plight of refugees is not an abstract thing to me, it is a real thing that happens to real people like you and me. My parents and grand-parents were ordinary people with ordinary hopes and dreams who got caught in the turmoil created outside their sphere of control or influence.
Posted by Anansi, Monday, 1 December 2008 7:14:18 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
It’s strange how some people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is “angry”, Anansi. Do you have trouble with anger?

As a great-grandfather, I take responsibility for what I am. It’s a bit late to start blaming my mother.

You are “… actually very interested why there are people who have such negative feelings towards refugees”.

Pull my other leg, Anansi. It’s got bells on it
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 1 December 2008 10:17:14 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
I've been mostly offline for a few days. Interesting to see how the discussion about Australia's failure to provide asylum for bona fide refugees has been diverted by the odious xenophobes who've apparently found a soapbox from which to spit their hateful venom.

Alf Garnett: << My final words to all are: illegals should be turned straight around; all immigration, including any refugees, to Australia should cease. >>

Unfortunately they weren't Leigh's "final words". However, they do betray the utter futility of arguing with the hateful old goose on this issue.

Victor Meldrew: << By trying to evade migration services they have proved their bad character, making them “unsuitable for settlement”. >>

So there's no such thing as a bona fide refugee who makes it to Australian shores, according to this particularly awful product of our immigration program. They should therefore all be returned to their countries of origin to be murdered.

Atl least franklin and Yabby have made rational arguments, although not on the topic of the original article.

Full marks to Spikey, Anansi and Romany for persisting, but I couldn't be bothered arguing with such obdurately heartless bastards as Mr Right and Col Rouge. I'm just delighted that I don't think I know anyone who is quite as nasty towards less fortunate human beings as they are - or perhaps I do, and they hide timorously behind anonymity in order to spew their bile as these miserable excuses for humanity do.

Bastards like these aren't game enough to own the odious filth that they excrete anonymously in online forums. Unfortunately, OLO seems to provide a soapbox for them - best to point out their most obvious crap, provide some facts, then leave them alone to wallow in their awfulness, I reckon.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 6:22:46 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
Spikey “I tend to think that when people throw abuse about they are angry at having been caught with a compromising opinion.”

So, I guess that explains your usual vitriol.

Because nothing I have written compromises anything else I have written …

Anansi “ColR, why do you suppose that the members of the ethnic gangs that you referred to are in any way shape or form related to the issue of refugees, whether arriving here via the humanitarian quota system or as boat people?”

Well we do not have a very deep history of migration between the Horn of Africa and Australia, nor much with Vietnam or a hundred other places, such a short history is all that is needed to conclude the relationship between either direct migration or first generation children of migrants (refugee or otherwise).

Regarding the one reference (and one swallow does not make a summer) you managed, between attending to the needs of your children to drag out I offer this to counter and confirm the “baggage” which some ethnic minorities bring with them..

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21164506-2,00.html


Mr Right – not sure who you were before you reinvented yourself but agree with your sentiment too… (probably the wisdom and healthy skepticism which comes with the years needed to qualify as a great-grandfather : - ) )
Of most interest to me was however, your comment “I take responsibility for what I am”

All I can respond with is “likewise”.. .

It is a shame those who like to maraud train stations, car parks and city streets, in gangs to attack law abiding citizens and steal or just to intimidate do not hold similar decent values but then, if they did, it would mean all the do-gooders would have nothing to fret over, to fill their otherwise worthless lives.

And I claim no copyright to the epithet handed to our resident ‘moron’, feel free to adopt it for your own use (enough of us and he might get the message).

Speak of the devil, I see the moron has managed to find his way out from under his stone
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 8:06:11 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
Interesting. No one has responded to my comments of 27 Nov. Not a peep. Just a complete pass-over.

So CJ, what do you think?

I’d like to get a better idea of just what we agree and disagree on. Thanks.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 8:11:08 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
Col Rouge,

I notice you ignored (a) my reasonable question and (b) my straight-forward request:

(a) "...the basis for assuming that you never post any comments about British ethnic gangs is that you simply don't. And never have. Yet you are happy to comment negatively about 'ethnic gangs' from other national backgrounds. Why is that so?"

(b) "Perhaps you could mount a reasoned argument why you find it necessary to mention ethnicity at all when the issue is gang behaviour?

I remind you of your comment: " When I make statements such as yours [another poster], I tend to support them with data."

All show and no substance?
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 9:12:26 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
CJ Morgan has complained several times in this thread of the discussion having been diverted from the subject of the article, that of alleged failure on the part of Australia to provide asylum to claimants.

A fuller understanding of the allegedly diversionary comments may be obtainable if it is borne in mind that most of the responses here are from ordinary Australians, as opposed to Australian politicians. Many of the treaties being held up as a standard against which Australia can be shown to have failed to fulfil its obligations have been drawn up by persons not representative of Australians, and were ratified unthinkingly over the years by the Australian politician class, a class as to which there is widespread agreement that it has not been well representing the interests of ordinary Australians.

franklin's post of 26 November 2008 12:03:52 PM makes reference to the 2001 Australian Electoral Study, "[which] found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people, ie: secondary movement asylum seekers." On this issue Howard did not lead: he followed the overwhelming public view. Pursuit of a continuing vendetta against Howard over technicalities surrounding this issue will inevitably run up against strong opposition from a majority of ordinary Australians who see the real issues and risks. Hence the 'diversion'.

In short, the 'international treaty obligations' line will not stick with the bulk of the Australian public where Australian sovereignty stands to be diluted.

Ludwig complains of non-response to his posts of 27 November. He might well find three to one in favour of his last paragraph therein, but of course it is difficult for such agreement to be articulated and remain 'on topic' if the article itself seeks to divert from the real area of public concern, as this one does.

Like Ludwig, I complain of non-response as to how Australia's immigration program is seen as being 'social engineering'. Both Bronwyn and Bruce Haigh have respectively asserted and accepted such. I'd like to hear more. Soon.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 9:36:00 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
Hi Ludwig -

Sorry, I missed your post, buried as it was in a pile of Collie-do.

Briefly, to your hypothetical points 1 & 2 - who knows how many asylum seekers would have arrived in Australia in the absence of Howard's cynical manipulation of their misfortune for political purposes? There is no evidence to suggest that "thousands more people" would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia, other than in the imaginations of those who responded so readily to Howard and Reith's dog-whistles.

<< Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Australian authorities didn’t do their damnedest to properly determine all asylum seekers’ asylum status? Are they suggesting people were knowingly sent back to very precarious life-threatening situations? Isn’t it a case of best judgements being made on the information available at the time? >>

While I have no doubt that Immigration officials do their best, surely you're not suggesting that they are immune from political pressures from the incumbent government, particularly one which made a virtue of harsh treatment of refugees? Clearly, in the cases of the subjects of the documentary, somebody stuffed up really badly with fatal consequences for the subjects of their erroneous determinations.

<< it is far too easy to get terribly hung up on a small number of unfortunate stories >>

Indeed. Particularly if one is thrown down a well and has a grenade dropped in with you.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 9:48:45 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
>>>Anansi. Do you have trouble with anger?
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 1 December 2008 10:17:14 PM<<<

Clearly Mr Right does:

>>>Spikey is one of the self-haters whom I refuse to acknowledge because he posts utter rubbish.
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 29 November 2008 4:58:22 PM<<<

>>>Anansi,
Good luck to your children; but they are not doing anything other kids have done and, being Australian born, they have probably learned more from their peers than they ever did from their not-very-pleasant parent.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 28 November 2008 1:40:17 PM<<<

>>>Romany,
You have opened your big mouth again
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:45:16 AM<<<

Another poster with anger issues is Col Rouge. Now that he has been banned from calling refugees “swill” he makes do with referring to CJ as 'Cjmoron' every second post. Or pathetic little snipes like:

>>>Spikey, or maybe that should be cork-screw (spikey but “twisted”)
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 1 December 2008 7:59:28 AM<<<

Col and Mr Right you are both old enough and, dare I say, intelligent enough to know how to debate – attempting to divert the paucity of your arguments by personal insult does not convince or fool anyone. And you wonder why you are called in turn 'pig ignorant'.

Do either of you say any of the above to people face to face?

Incapable of providing facts, your opinions on immigration and understanding of refugee status are as flaccid as they are spurious.

Anansi, Romany, Spikey and CJ Morgan

Q: What do you get when you cross a neocon with a lemming?

A: Peace.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 10:23:35 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
CJ; "There is no evidence to suggest that "thousands more people" would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia..."

Aha, the first point of disagreement. Oh I do love a good stouch! (:>)

There was a great deal of evidence, and it wasn't being kept secret. Phillip Ruddock was constantly in the news for weeks if not months before the Tampa incident talking about a build-up of people in source countries, people gathering in Indonesia and an increase in people-smuggling operations.

One thing is for sure; in August 2001 a comprehensive effort was needed to stop this escalation of asuylum seekers heading for Australia decisively.

"...surely you're not suggesting that they are immune from political pressures from the incumbent government..."

Immigration officials are not immune from political pressures. But it made no sense at the time that they would have been pressured to send people back to dangerous environments. Afterall, the vast majority of asylum seekers were accepted as refugees, at least on a temporary basis.

If the numbers of asylum seekers had considerably increased, then you can bet that there would have been a lot of pressure on the authorities to send a much larger portion of them home.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 5:46:02 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
“It is clear that anyone who would be disappointed that my remarks are “left on” OLO does not have the slightest inkling of what freedom of speech is all about”

Perhaps, Mr. Right, they(we?) have a much clearer idea than you give credit for.

Throughout humankind’s history the prohibitions on speaking freely about religion and politics have seen millions killed. Those who fought for the first Bill of Rights in 1689 gave us the beginnings of a dream of freedom of expression. Voltaire’s Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 took us one step further and J.S. Mills in 1859 further built upon our universal rights.

To see this cause debased so that individuals can claim the right to verbal abuse is a mere travesty of what Freedom of Speech means.

As with any right, it’s attainment has resulted in certain responsibilities e.g. one has the right to drink alcohol over a certain age – but not to misuse alcohol to the detriment of the community. The same with driving a car, carrying fire-arms or any other rights we have.

The right to express our political or religious views publicly in no way nullifies the rights of people to live free of gratuitous insults towards themselves and their families. Because we live in a democracy wherein we all have the same rights, (ostensibly), legislation has also been passed to ensure that anyone who does misuse the right to Freedom of Speech by employing libel, slander, obscenity or sedition can be punished.

Such punishment is rarely sought however, as the truism that democracy is more accurately described as majority rule, ensures that our rights are usually upheld: the need to vilify, insult and denigrate strangers is looked upon by that majority as socially unacceptable.

The minority who have no such compunction are, perhaps, incorrigible. However, for members of this minority then to invoke Freedom of Speech as their excuse, is completely illogical.

The reminder that we live in a democratic society does not pardon them either because, in such societies, the minority do not hold the advantage.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 8:41:10 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
Fractelle writes:

"Col and Mr Right you are both old enough and, dare I say, intelligent enough to know how to debate – attempting to divert the paucity of your arguments by personal insult does not convince or fool anyone. And you wonder why you are called in turn 'pig ignorant'."

And where are Col Rouge and Mr Right?

A pair of neocons out with lemmings?
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 9:33:17 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
Nobody has mentioned, with respect to Afghan asylum seekers that had undertaken secondary movement by around 2001, that following the 11 September 2001 events in the US there soon came to be a regime change in Afghanistan. The regime from which these secondary movement asylum seekers at the time were fleeing was the former one of the Taliban, which, prior to US intervention, controlled virtually the entire country.

Given the regime change in Afghanistan that came about whilst these people were detained under the Pacific Solution, there was perhaps reason to believe that the persecution they had claimed to be fleeing was no longer occurring in Afghanistan. It is, after all, from the organised persecution by those exercising temporal power that asylum is accepted as a remedy in the case of fugitives from such a regime. Asylum was never meant to be a remedy or refuge for large numbers of people from general civic and economic conditions that may prevail in any particular country.

It is also not clear to me whether some secondary movement asylum seekers in detention chose to return to Afghanistan as a way of ending their detention, as distinct from being returned there as a result of a unilateral determination of the Australian government. There is a difference.

The principle of non-refoulment has been spoken of as having been violated by Australia in the return of some of these former detainees to Afghanistan. There are now clearly able to be seen to be two possible reasons why such claimed violation may not have been relevant at the time of their return. That civic conditions within Afghanistan continue to be subject to disorders of the sort that resulted in the deaths of some formerly detained persons that were subsequently returned to that country is unfortunate.

To remove the double standard with respect to asylum entitlement, perhaps Australia should instead negotiate a bilateral agreement with, say, Kenya, under which any and all secondary movement asylum seekers attempting entry would be placed in a refugee camp in that country run under UNHCR auspices, there to join a queue.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 5:39:14 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
Ludwig - yes, Ruddock was making all sorts of claims prior to the Tampa incident. I think that Ruddock's public numerical estimates should be regarded as having the same degree of validity as, e.g. Howard and Reith's subsequent "children overboard" claims and Ruddock's prevarication over the SIEV-X abomination. I meant real, verifiable evidence that there were "thousands" more refugees who would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia had the Howard government not enacted its execrable 'Pacific Solution'.

<< But it made no sense at the time that they would have been pressured to send people back to dangerous environments. >>

I forget which minister (Vanstone?) it was who said that the dangers of refoulement to Afgahnistan were similar to those of crossing an Australian street, but they were clearly wrong. At least from the perspective of those who were refused asylum and were returned to be murdered, and those Australian soldiers who are still being killed or wounded in Afghanistan.

One could apply the reverse logic and ask why it was deemed safe for those particular refugees to be denied asylum, when the claims of the vast majority of their peers were determined to be valid? Like I said, somebody stuffed up - badly.

Forrest Gumpp - I note you complain about others not responding to your posts, but your response to my correction of your claim about asylum seekers who arrive by air was one of silence. You can babble on as much as you like about "secondary movement" asylum seekers, but under the law as it stands the great majority of such refugees who make it to Australian territory and seek asylum are granted it, eventually.

This may not suit the xenophobes and closet racists, so I recommend you guys begin a campaign to change Australia's treaty obligations. Undoubtedly there are various organisations devoted to such purposes that you could join, but you might have to shed your precious anonymity.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 8:03:30 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
Morgan was a little slower than usual puffing himself up to continue his long term obsession with me. He must hang onto my every word; he was the first and only one to twig that Mr. Right was also Leigh some time ago. This time I’m Alf Garnett and Victor Meldrew as well. I supposed I should be flattered to have got under his skin as much. I notice, though, that Col Rouge’s sensible view of things is also getting to him.

Poor old CJ is going to be kept busy with two “heartless bastards” on his books.

I’m not sure what he means by:” Bastards like these aren't game enough to own the odious filth that they excrete anonymously in online forums.”

Does it mean that CJ Morgan is not voicing his unreasoning hatred anonymously? We don’t know him anymore than he knows Col Rouge and me. Or, does he intend to identify himself – full name and address with documentary proof the next time he runs amok with his abuse of others?

He is so full of hatred that he doesn’t know what he is saying anymore. The poor fellow forgets that all posters on OLO are anonymous, including him. I’ve heard of people whose obsessions finally see them losing it altogether. The “…odious filth that they excrete…” when referring to reasonable (if not universally liked) opinions of others is way over the top, and suggests that CJ needs help already.

Anyway, CJ Morgan will be pleased to know that people smuggling and people attempting to enter Australia is on the rise since Ruddy Labor overturned our border protection. He will be outraged, though, to learn that Immigration Minister Evans said that we will be increasing support for Indonesian authorities “in an effort to stamp out the surge.” (The Australian 1/12/08).

Although the Government recognises that there is a surge, it denies its policies are to blame, of course. But, over the year since Labor has been in, activity has increased.

There is a long way to go on this subject. I hope CJ Morgan can make it.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:06:51 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

1 Weaker boarder protection would have seen a flood of thousands of illegal boat-people attempt to invade these shores and circumvent the requirements of the Australian Migration Act, the Howard strategy was in the national interest.

2 The scale of such an invasion could have caused wide scale social unrest by the majority of those people who were born or arrived here legally.

3 people who treat Australian rights and processes with contempt,. Cannot expect support from those they deliberately offend.

4 there are plenty or real refugees worthy of refugee visa, without issuing them to those who simply rock up and demand entry.

Spikey, you amuse more than upset me, I consider it similar to poking a slug and watching it squirm (maybe childish but there is a child in all of us, as the quality of your postings proves).

Ah Fractelle, our resident whine expert ..

“Incapable of providing facts, your opinions on immigration and understanding of refugee status are as flaccid as they are spurious.”

I see little of fact in your post, mostly ad hominine and rank hypocrisy … nothing new in that.

Footnote, since you bring it up. I have never suggested refugees are “Swill” because they are “Refugees”.

Indeed I always have expressed full support for the compassionate opportunities which an Australian refugee visa offers someone who is living in dire straits.

However, I have never considered as a “refugee” someone who just happens upon these shores, having paid a lot of money to people smugglers for their attempt at a clandestine arrival.

What defines those who try to arrive here with their first intention to contemptibly flaunt and undermine the laws of this country, by attempting clandestine entry?

Well, such contempt clearly declares such persons unworthy of either entry or citizenship and they should be banned forever from applying for a visa in the future, there are plenty of real refugees who are far more deserving.

You call them what you like.
I have accurately called them what they are.

Keep up the good postings Mr Right….
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 10:22:30 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 is undoubtedly tragic and may well represent a failure of the system if genuine refugees are sent back into danger. The same can be said if innocent people are wrongly convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison, where they also may be injured or killed by other prisoners. Huff, Ratner & Sagarin in "Convicted, but Innocent" (1996), have found that at least 0.5% of convictions for serious crimes in the US are wrongful. Evan Whitton in "Cartel" (1998) has estimated 1% for Australia. However, no one is proposing that all the prisons be closed down and the prisoners released to avoid this, because even more innocent people would suffer and die.

Similarly, if we provide open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee, from the experience of various European countries, such large numbers would arrive that we would be in danger of making Australia as poor, populous, and environmentally degraded as the countries people are risking their lives to escape, quite apart from the potential for ethnic and religious conflict, to the ultimate benefit of no one. At least to date, the real problem in developed countries has not been genuine refugees, but economic migrants who claim asylum under false pretences and are very difficult to deport, even if their claims are rejected. From the British Home Office figures (see Briefing Paper 9.14 from Migration Watch UK)

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/

499,000 asylum claims were made in the 1997-2004 period, not counting dependants. 23% were found to be genuine, including after appeal. Failed asylum seekers only had a 19% chance of being deported. Germany got 438,000 asylum claims in 1992 alone, according to the Parliamentary Library paper franklin cited. The UN High Commission for Refugees has admitted that by the early 1990s, the vast majority of asylum seekers in developed countries were economic migrants. See

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

You refugee advocates would serve your cause better if you discussed reforming the 1951 Refugee Convention to deal with the serious objections franklin raised, rather than just asserting that it can't happen here or calling people "heartless bastards".
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 11:18:19 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
Col Rouge,

You too mate.

I did have a quick look at Fractelle's rant against us. Not one to bother about opinions our Fractelle. A quick trip from the sandpit where they amuse each other with home-spun topics - just to give us a serve. I believe she's a bit of a star over there. She should stay there.

I don't think we need to waste our posting allocations on the 3 girls Or is it 4. I think Spikey has a claim to womanhood. I got a spray the other day for asuming that she was a man They don't like us, we don't like them. End of story.

I must say, though, that they do conduct themselves better than you-know-who.

Cheers
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 11:51:52 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
Col & M Right

Many have attempted to explain to you the difference between 'refugee' and 'illegal alien' - you still deliberately choose to misunderstand in order to prop up the now defunct Howard "Pacific Solution".

I have worked for over ten years with immigrants who arrived in Australia either by plane or boat. No-one who is sufficiently cashed-up would willingly choose to arrive by leaky substandard boat, yet you persist in promoting this fantasy despite the best efforts of others to explain to you that the majority of potentially criminal types arrive safely by plane.

That you continue to deride, insult and avoid questions to which you cannot answer unless you admit to being racist, simply confirms my point that you seek to deflect true debate by ad hominem attacks as you have demonstrated in your posts above.

No-one is suggesting open slather permission to any who arrive on our shores, what we do expect is that people are treated in a humane manner while their claims are being processed. This point appears to be lost on you both. Hence descriptions of being heartless.

I also agree that consideration must be given to the number of people our country can reasonably support. At the moment with our wasteful, nonsustainable lifestyles, this would not be very many. Therefore, we need to consider not only how we aid genuine refugees but how we treat this evironment that is Australia. It is a massive problem, it won't be solved by any magic bullet, nor will it be solved by arrogance or inability to communicate.

That people, who were genuine refugees in fear for their lives, were returned to their country of origin and subsequently killed is appalling. That we allowed our leaders to permit these tragedies is shameful.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rejected-refugees-sent-home-to-die/2006/08/07/1154802823160.html

That you wilfully ignore reports such as the one above and resort to telling people to "shut their big mouths" or ridicule them reveals you as intolerant, deliberately ignorant and a waste of my valuable time. However, to remain silent is just as reprehensible as your misanthropic posts, hence my response today.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 12:59:46 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 deaths of failed asylum seekers returned to their home countries can be attributed to various causes and need not necessarily be connected to their failed claims for refugee status. This is perhaps illustrated by the recent case of Akram Almasri.

Akram Al Masri arrived in Australia unlawfully (that is without a visa) from Indonesia as a secondary movement asylum seeker in 2001 and was detained in the Woomera Detention Centre while his case for a protection visa was examined. His application was refused by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 5 December 2001 and he then requested to return to Gaza and was eventually sent back there in September 2002. In July 2008 al Masri was shot dead in the Gaza strip.

Immediately the news broke on al Masri’s death it was automatically attributed by refugee advocates as resulting from his being denied refugee status. The director of the Edmund Rice Centre, Phil Glendenning, said that said Mr Al Masri's death was a tragedy and that there were many other refugees who were in a similar situation to Mr Al Masri.

Jamal Daoud, a spokesman for the Social Justice Network, said the Howard government had blood on its hands. "The previous Australian government is responsible for another terrible crime by forcing refugees to be sent back to Gaza when they knew the situation there," he said.

Note the emotive comments, but what were the actual facts of the case.

"IT BEGAN with a mango three years ago. A member of Gaza’s powerful Masri clan had stopped to buy fruit at a roadside stall in 2005, but the vendor did not have enough small change to break his 20 shekel note - equal to $5. The Masri man pulled a gun and killed the vendor, who was a member of the Abu Taha clan. By the end of last year, the ensuing feud had claimed the lives of 29 people - 10 from neither clan. Sixty had been wounded and homes and businesses on both sides had been torched."

Commentary on the al Masri case can be found at:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/easier_to_blame_howard#38262
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 3:22:13 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
"people smuggling and people attempting to enter Australia is on the rise since Ruddy Labor overturned our border protection"

He did WHAT? You better call a television station and break the news because the entire news media missed that one.

Well said Fractelle. Don't expect a change in tone though. None so blind...
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 3:50:35 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
Mr. Right: << My ‘new’ new start is: no more engaging with other posters for me >>

Like his "final" comment, one wishes that miserable old Leigh would do what he says he's going to do.

<< his long term obsession with me. He must hang onto my every word >>

In your dreams. No, it was obvious that you'd just changed your alias - the hateful ideas and waspish prose were identical. Anyway, after letting you know I was aware of your failed ploy I've pretty well left you alone, except in threads like this where your comments are more egregiously offensive than usual. If anything, "Mr Right" appears to be even unhappier and nastier than old Leigh was.

And Leigh - CJ Morgan is my real name, under which I'm well known in my community and under which I conduct business and vote. I live in Queensland and I'm a member of the Greens, so I'm not hard to track down if you have half a brain. Several friends and acquaintances have done just that in responding to comments I make here.

My point is that, unlike you and the odious Col Rouge, I stand by the ideas and values that I express here in real life. I bet you and Col wouldn't say boo to a goose if you could be held accountable for what you spew out here.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 4 December 2008 6:44:07 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
Divergence, I appreciate your presentation of statistical data.

Similarly franklin contributes objective data to the thread.

Fractelle those who arrive here but attempt to avoid the migration services are actually “unlawful non-citizens” per the Australian Migration Act and deserve to be incarcerated prior to being returned from whence they came.

It is you who repeatedly attempt to obfuscate the difference between them and real "Refugees", not me.

“I have worked for over ten years with immigrants”

Well that should discourage them from coming here (I find just reading your drivel is discouragement enough)

“resort to telling people to "shut their big mouths"”

Please quote

in which post (date/time and thread title will suffice) I used that phrase

or

Withdraw your desperate and feeble lie now.

“waste of my valuable time.”

That must qualify as “Oxymoron of the Day”

“However, to remain silent is just as reprehensible . . . hence my response today.”

Like most of the rest of your post, you have that wrong,

You are as reprehensible when posting as when you remain silent.

Mr Right and myself are free to express our sincerely held view.

When low lifes like Spikey

using phrases like

“This is one of your sillier posts. Read it again, dear boy, and see if you can spot the flaws in your logic.” And

“Well then, dear chap, stop posting shallow emotive “ Or
“babble away telling others to get 'the big picture',”

and Fractelle says “Another poster with anger issues” and
“Incapable of providing facts, ….are as flaccid as they are spurious.”

it hardly entitles either of them to suggest ““That you continue to deride, insult and avoid questions”

Btw "shut their big mouths" was written ONLY by fractelle but as is often the case, she deceitfully used it to highlight her "truth-free" vilification.

Look up the phrase "rank hypocrites"

to see picture of fractelle and Spikey

oh, some one put bug repellant out for the resident moron, he is beneath me bothering with.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 4 December 2008 8:16:37 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
CJ Morgan,

CJ Morgan might be your real name; on the other hand it might not. I would not be surprised if you are really a member of the Greens, though: they are about the only party suitable for a destructive, left-wing loony and control freak in Australia. But, even they, would accept your membership only to get another name on the roll. I’m sure you could be easily found – the village idiot in your community.

I’m not interested in ‘tracking you down’; I am not interested in making barely veiled threats of violence against you (like you have against me and others) just because of what you say here. Unlike you, I have no desire to harm people who disagree with me.

You say that you “…stand by the ideas and values that I express here in real life”. Well so do I, buster and I’m sure Col Rouge does too. We both disagree with everything you stand for. You are the worst type of bully and thug. If you are a member of the Greens, it is very apt. The Greens will never have to put their money where their mouths are.

Unlike you, I have a real life away from OLO, and people don’t rush up to me saying, “Leigh, Leigh please tell me what you think about illegal immigrants, refugees, multiculturalism” or whatever. Nor do I go around preaching like I’m sure you do. I owe allegiance to no political party and my only influence is, like most people’s, through the ballot box.

If a controversial subject is brought up in my presence, I state my views. People with opposing views can take it or leave it. If you mixed with people other than Greens and bores, you would know that, in most cases, people with different views usually change the subject and talk about something else. Life for them does not revolve about political parties and the manic desire to change everybody else’s mind.

Please buy a Thesaurus and expand you vocabulary. “Odious” a few other of your pet words are wearing very thin.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:37:46 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 is only since Howard encouraged use of "illegals" and "those kind of people" to describe boat people that these derogatory - and inaccurate - names have been thrown about. Anyone around in the 70's would be aware of the flight of refugees from Vietnam when the term 'boat people' was first coined. I don't recall any resentment of the fact then; most objection was on the simple basis of race rather than their manner of arrival.

In this era it has become seemingly acceptible to label refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of how they arrived in Australia and not much else. In many cases the country of origin does not have a functioning administration yet after reading some of the rants here you'd think an Australian embassy opens 9 to 5 in the CBD of every major settlement on the planet.

I've still to hear of anyone trying to avoid the migration services. If anything that's what they're after. If you do not have faith those services will do their job that's another matter. Perhaps the UN convention on refugees does need to be revised. Great! Until then do we honour it or do we disregard it because we're special? I thought only the US practiced exceptionalism.

Please note, stats for British migration have as much bearing on this country as do stats for British sun cancer. They certainly have problems but such alarmism detracts from your argument.
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:50:35 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
Mr Right: << barely veiled threats of violence >>

Leigh, you seem to be a experiencing some kind of paranoid episode. If you construe any of my comments as implying any kind of violence you're seriously deluded.

I have no personal interest in you whatsoever. However, rest assured that I'll continue to respond appropriately to the more egregious comments you make, under whatever alias you're currently hiding behind.

As I've said, on the basis of what you've posted in this thread there's no point in arguing with you about the topic, so feel free to continue to post whatever misanthropic drivel floats your boat.

Ciao for now.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 4 December 2008 9:01:43 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
CJ Morgan; “Ludwig - yes, Ruddock was making all sorts of claims prior to the Tampa incident”.

This may cause you rush outside and throw up in your garden, but I think that Phillip Ruddock was one of the few truly genuinely honest say-everything-at-face-value politicians of our time (unlike some of his colleagues, such as Abbot and Costello). When he said that there was a build-up of asylum seekers heading towards Australia, and when he elucidated the various supporting evidence, I believed him….at face value.

Anyway, even if he was mistaken about the escalation, it was clear that there was an established asylum seeker movement and that boats would keep coming after the Tampa incident with no end in sight, if the border-protection policy hadn’t been tightened. Even if the rate of arrivals hadn’t increased, we would still have had twice as many, or perhaps ten times as many people to deal with within the next year or so.

If the issue had dragged on, the Australian public would have demanded tough action…and in just the same way that Howard’s tough stance strongly assisted him in winning the following election, a lack of strong action would have severely hampered his chances of re-election….and greatly increased the resolve of Labor to decisively deal with the issue.

And there would have been much more pressure to assert a much harsher interpretation of the 1951 refugee convention criteria…resulting in a larger proportion of arrivals being sent home.

Surely there is no doubt about either of these points.

.
Forrest makes a very good point about regime change and the feeling that Afghanistan was a much safer place after American ‘occupation’, and that people could be sent back on that basis. It proved to be fallacious, but I’m sure you, CJ, can see that it was a genuine belief at the time.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 4 December 2008 9:38:13 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
I've read through many of the threads again and the issue that comes up time and time again is the anger towards refugees that arrive here as 'secondary movement' asylum seekers who are 'jumping a queue'.

We can talk till we're blue in the face, but obviously we are not going to agree on the 'illegal' bit regarding refugees. But there certainly is frustration from both sides of the fence on how people who arrive here without a visa are dealt with. Neither side is happy on that score.

The facts are:
-millions of displaced persons are living in very often appalling conditions in refugee camps, many for YEARS.

-all these refugee camps, from which secondary movement occurs, are in poor third world countries. Those countries have a huge refugee problem.

-Can Western countries expect that these poor countries will care that by getting rid of a few refugees through people smuggling it will cause no end of angst in some comfortable sububurban homes?

-a yearly intake of 13 000 refugees is not a queue. It is a laughable number considering the number of immigrants per year that come into Australia.

My view is that if Australia, and please let's not constantly compare ourselves to little crowded European countries, changes the 'mix' of permanent arrivals into Australia by having a much, much larger number of humanitarian visas then maybewe can start referring to 'a queue'

At present the chance of being able to apply for one, let alone obtain a visa, is so remote that people will start looking for alternate ways of leaving a life in limbo in some refugee camp.

I know the temptation is big to resort to 'bleeding heart' and 'do-gooder' tags in response to anybody who suggests that just sending asylum seekers away, or putting them in some 'exclusion zone' is not dealing with what is.

Why can we in Australia not be more pro active in dealing with both the numbers of people who are looking for a safe haven and our need for new citizens?
Posted by Anansi, Thursday, 4 December 2008 9:52:50 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
Mr. Right, "Morgan was [the] ... only one to twig that Mr. Right was also Leigh some time ago."

CJ wasn't the only one. I noticed that Leigh disappeared, and at the same time a Mr Right with similar ideas spoken in a more vitriolic tone appeared. If there were two of us who noticed there are almost certainly more.

I don't think I have responded to a comment of yours before. This is because I normally respond only to people who I think are amenable to reason. This may seem like a lie as I have responded to runner. But if you choose your approach well he is amenable to reason - or at least can be manipulated by using it. You - I suspect not so much.

In any case I agree with you this time. Actually, I should not say that. If your were intending to seduce someone to your point of view your words here they are an unmitigated disaster. I agree with Yabby. I think CJ is wrong, and Yabby nailed it. I have been feeling guilty at not supporting Yabby here, but I have nothing to add. It is soooo much easier to say nothing after a few glasses of wine.

You should try wine, Mr Right, or perhaps some other mind altering drug if you prefer. Right or wrong, as it stands you have no chance of persuading the readers here with your arguments. You are wasting your time. With wine, Mr Right, you may not feel the need to hide behind your pseudonym and be able to post as Leigh, again. That would be nice.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 4 December 2008 9:57:35 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
Mr Right; “Anyway, CJ Morgan will be pleased to know that people smuggling and people attempting to enter Australia is on the rise since Ruddy Labor overturned our border protection”

The weakening of border-protection policy was one of the stupidest pieces of politics I’ve ever seen, being right up there with Rudd’s big boost in immigration and increase in the baby bonus.

What the hell does he think he’s doing? This stuff is just so absolutely contrary to the national interest.

So now we’ve got a new wave of asylum seekers to deal with. Wonderful.

What do you think about this CJ?

.
In response to Col’s four points of 3 December; yes, yes, yes and yes!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 5 December 2008 8:06:48 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
Anansi “millions of displaced persons are living in very often appalling conditions in refugee camps, many for YEARS.”

And they have my sympathy.

Regarding your view concerning the Australias issue of refugee Visas -

“a yearly intake of 13,000 refugees “

“It is a laughable number “

and

“My view is that if Australia, and please let's not constantly compare ourselves to little crowded European countries, changes the 'mix' of permanent arrivals into Australia by having a much, much larger number of humanitarian visas “

It is entirely possible for our government, who are primarily responsible for acting in the interests of Australian citizens, with some secondary compassion for the interests of non-Australians and who are accountable to the Australian Electorate, to assess and change the numbers of different types of visas.

A healthy community entitles everyone to Lobby government to influence the numbers of visas available but ultimately we are entitled to ACT only within the discretion of the law which is designed to protecct us all.

It is not the right of anyone, anywhere, least of all non-citizens, to deliberately evade Australian migration officials by landing on a deserted beach and pretending they are refugees. The polite word for that is “Anarchy”.

Anyone who arrives with proper visas, legally obtained should be welcomed by the rest of us. Then we can all help them assimilate into a culture which is alien to them.

but please

Stop trying to justify the un-lawful and selfish actions of what amounts to "refugee anarchists", who are deliberately undermining Australia’s Rule of Law and the right of all Australian legal residents and citizens to expect a "secure national border".

Maybe if they and their fellow country men had more respect for the Rule of Law in their own country, their countries would not be the sort of places from which they are seeking to escape.


Ludwig, your concurrence is valued : - )
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 5 December 2008 8:50:53 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
rstuart,

"If you were intending to seduce someone to your point of view your words here they are an unmitigated disaster."

But, I am not intending to change anyone's point of view on Online OPINION. I am expressing MY OPINION. I don't care if 99.9% of posters don't agree with me. I am glad that some people do agree with me, but I totally accept that others do not, as is their right.

I am not a persuader. My 'people skills' are crap. All I have wanted to do is express my opinions and see others' opinions on all sorts of subjects.

What really brings the Hun out in me is people like CJ Morgan who try to suppress other people's opinions by abuse, nastiness, sarcasm and any ruse they can dredge up from their dreadful minds and personalities. As I have said before, all they have to do to disagree with me - or anyone else - is to simply express their own opinions.

Nine times out of ten, when I disagree with what someone else posts, I’ll do what most people do – pull a face, make a private derogatory remark or say and think nothing, and move on. But over the time I’ve been using OLO, there have been a few nasty people who cannot leave others alone. CJ Morgan and a nut called Ranier have been the nastiest, most vicious and most vacuous offenders. Ranier has gone – probably dead of his own poison. Hopefully, CJ Morgan will do the same thing.

Be careful of the wine. Alcohol is a dangerous drug.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 5 December 2008 9:31:34 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: << Surely there is no doubt about either of these points. >>

There clearly isn't among those who were predisposed to respond to the shameful Howard/Ruddock line. For those of us who remember the context of that regrettable episode in Australia's recent history however, we recall the Coalition was scraping the bottom of the barrel in its efforts to win back the racist/redneck constituency that it had lost to One Nation. In that sense, "border security" and 9/11 were a godsend for that morally bankrupt regime.

Ruddock was certainly talking up the numbers in that reprehensible campaign, and you're quite correct - I certainly don't share your faith in his honesty with the Australian public. Which means that your conjecture about what would hypothetically have happened if he happened to be telling the truth and if his government hadn't implemented the appalling 'Pacific Solution' remains just that - i.e. conjecture.

Those who are currently seeking asylum are apparently mostly Aghanis, and I think that their selection of Australia as a place to seek refuge stems at least as much from Australia's stupid involvement in their civil war as it does from any perception that we are a soft touch for asylum seekers. As with the Vietnamese boat people some decades ago, if Australia insists on sticking its nose militarily into other countries' affairs, we can expect that a proportion of displaced persons will seek refuge here.

As I've said, there may well be a case for reviewing the UN Convention, but while Australia remains a signatory to it in its current form we are legally and morally obliged to grant asylum to those bona fide refugees who seek it in Australian territory.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 5 December 2008 10:26:37 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
CJ, even if the rate of arrivals had not increased at all, you’ve surely got to accept that it wasn’t going to stop any time soon after August 2001, if our policy hadn’t changed. Can you offer any reason why the rate of influx would have stopped or slowed, or indeed not increased considerably at that time?

As I said in my last post, even in the absence of an escalation in numbers, continued arrivals would surely have led to increased civil unrest and a very strong demand that the government do something decisive about it.

I was no fan of the Howard government. But I certainly don’t see their actions over this issue in anything like the cynical manner that you do. And I don’t see the overwhelming view of the Australian populace of being in favour of curtailing people-smuggling as racist or redneck or otherwise at all unreasonable.

“…while Australia remains a signatory to it in its current form we are legally and morally obliged to grant asylum to those bona fide refugees who seek it in Australian territory.”

The great flaw in the refugee convention is that it is open-ended. No matter how many refugees come here, we are just supposed to accommodate them all! That is hopeless!! My mind boggles as to how such a policy could have been dreamed up in the first place or how ANY country could have become a signatory. Clearly, if the numbers become too large, they’ll fundamentally affect a country’s social integrity, and greatly harden community attitudes towards refugees.

Presumably you accept this CJ. So then, what would your point of balance be? How many do you think we could accommodate, or at what continuous rate of arrival?

Don't you think that it was just good sensible policy to tighten border-protection against the possibility of the number of arrivals grealty increasing, or increasing at all, or even remaining at a relative trickle...and concentrate on our refugee efforts through our offshore programs?
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 5:19:27 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
Ludwig: << even in the absence of an escalation in numbers, continued arrivals would surely have led to increased civil unrest and a very strong demand that the government do something decisive about it >>

Why would this necessarily have been the case? I don't recall much in the way of "civil unrest" during the days of the Vietnamese 'boat people'. I think that most of the racist and xenophobic discourse in Australia during the late 1990s was a direct product of the Howard government's scurrilous manipulation of the electorate in its quest to wrest back voters from One Nation. "Border protection" is a classic jingostic trope that they deployed in order to appear strong and patriotic in the face of a largely confected perceived threat.

In terms of numbers, as I've said before I think that Australia can accommodate many more refugees than we currently do, simply by reducing the number of economic immigrants that are currently permitted. I'd have no problem with replacing all of them with bona fide refugees from anywhere. And yes, I'd support an expansion of offshore processing capabilities in order to achieve that.

Currently, offshore processing appears to work principally as a mechanism for keeping refugees out of Australia, rather than allowing them in. If bona fide refugees were being fairly, efficiently and humanely assessed under that system, there wouldn't be much motivation for them to embark on dangerous voyages in unseaworthy boats in order to seek asylum in Australia, would there?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:06:10 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
Well done CJ Morgan for focussing on the issue, while ignoring ad hominem attacks.

The "Pacific Solution" and other Howard crimes against humanity - have no basis in true border protection but was a politically motivated chimera to appear tough.

Lest We Forget:

" "There comes a time when to uphold the law is to betray justice" …

One of Australia’s most eminent QCs, Julian Burnside..

"If we are to pursue justice, we must be prepared to question the laws we help administer"...

...."I learned, through the Tampa case..... that asylum-seekers are confronted by unjust laws being implemented by a government which has lost touch with ordinary standards of decency".

[following] his visit to the Baxter detention centre in South Australia earlier this month.

He described the scenes inside ......: "asylum-seekers walk around as if still alive; they talk as if they still have a hold on rational thinking, but they are not wholly there: ..... Their minds are gone: shredded, destroyed by hopelessness and despair".

"The management unit at Baxter is solitary confinement bordering on total sensory deprivation."

... United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has described Australia’s detention centres as "worse than prisons" ... UN Human Rights Commission said conditions were "an offence to human dignity".

Mr Burnside said the "most essential function" of the courts was to "stand as an impartial guardian of the rights of the weak against the wishes of the powerful".

......

"The High Court has acknowledged that there are circumstances where detention is necessary for the discharge of an executive function... this holds good only as long as the detention goes no further than can reasonably be seen as necessary to the executive purpose which supports it."
.....

Mr Burnside said the government’s case – that holding persons in such conditions for an indefinite period was lawful – was an argument "worthy of the legal positivists of the Nazi regime". "There comes a time when to uphold the law is to betray justice""

http://www.tonykevin.com.au/BurnsideOnDetention.html

We need Border Protection, we don't need to continue a cycle of misery.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 6 December 2008 10:17:30 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
CJ Morgan states:

“Currently, offshore processing appears to work principally as a mechanism for keeping refugees out of Australia, rather than allowing them in. If bona fide refugees were being fairly, efficiently and humanely assessed under that system, there wouldn't be much motivation for them to embark on dangerous voyages in unseaworthy boats in order to seek asylum in Australia, would there?”

CJMorgan would be aware the majority of the world’s asylum seekers are processed under strict unhcr criteria and with limited access to appeal, and if found to be a genuine refugee must wait until resettlement by another country becomes available. In actuality, few resettlement places are available.

CJMorgan would also be aware that by paying many thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in Australia, secondary movement asylum seekers gain two great advantages. Firstly, they gain access to Australia’s very more lenient legal regime with multiple levels of appeal, and secondly, after being found by a lenient legal regime to require protection they then gain residence.

Would CJMorgan agree that people smuggling results in discrimination in refugee assessment. Those not having the large financial resources to pay people smugglers, that is the majority of the world’s refugees, are discriminated against. Those with substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers gain assessment by an easier legal regime and then gain residence if needing protection. Those without substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers are assessed by strict unhcr criteria with limited appeal and then wait for resettlement. Is CJMorgan against all forms of discrimination, and if so shouldn’t this discrimination be eliminated ?

An Article from “The Australian” states that Gholam Ali spent 18 months in detention on Nauru after being rescued by the Tampa, but is so determined to reach Australia that he paid people-smugglers thousands of dollars to try again.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748378-601,00.html

The extended family (ten members) of an Iranian asylum seeker previously smuggled to Australia engages people smugglers to reach Australia. There was only a distant possibility of them coming to Australia under the family reunion scheme, so people smuggling was the method of choice.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24752542-25837,00.html
Posted by franklin, Saturday, 6 December 2008 11:24:51 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 bona fide refugees”

And there in lies the nub

Determining someones “bona fides” is pretty difficult to do when they either throw any identification away or use forged documents.

To Fractelles second hand opinions to Baxter.

I personally know a past General Manager of Baxter. I know about the willful destruction and stand-over practices of some detainees.

I know and have seen the nature of “management units” in prisons, if not in Baxter specifically and understand how they are built and ‘managed’ to a prescribed specification which is further overseen by off-site supervisors.

The subjective opinions which Burnside displays is nothing short of “bleeding-heart hysteria” from someone out to make a name for themselves.

Fractelle “while ignoring ad hominem attacks.”

Would that be like

“heartless bastards. . .”
“the odious minority. . . “
“you’re a selectively heartless bastard”
“…wiped his arse and washed his hands thoroughly after passing that last lot.”
“Terms like hypocrite, heartless bastard, xenophobe and odious goose come to mind.”
“What a pity we can't deport miscreants like Porky. . .”
“the odious xenophobes”
“they hide timorously behind anonymity in order to spew their bile as these miserable excuses for humanity do”

The above all being from our resident moron

Or maybe
Fractelle:
“flaccid as they are spurious
"shut their big mouths"

Spikey
“A pair of neocons out with lemmings”
“hateful psychobabble”
“Polycarpian scare-monger with half-truths and exaggerations.”

It seems to me your criticism of ad hominem attacks should be balanced with the obvious

Fractelle, you cannot defend Moron’s stoicism in the face of ad hominem attacks when he and you have been authors of so many.

Without intending any attack at all, the clear implication is obvious

Fractelle you are incapable of fashioning reasoned argument and intolerant of anyone who dares express a view contrary to that held by yourself.

In short, Fractelle is a fully formed but strangely small minded hypocrite.

I often see some redeemable qualities in most folk but in you and the moron,

I see none

Now have a nice day, I for one, will not be thinking about you.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 6 December 2008 12:12:14 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
CJ; “I don’t recall much in the way of ‘civil unrest’… “

Well, I think that the whole asylum seeker issue has caused quite considerable civil agitation, if not unrest. We’re still discussing the events of 2001 regularly on this forum sevens years on. The Tampa incident, SIEV X, Nauru and the whole mandatory detention saga has proven to be a major episode in this country’s history. Any little developments are still major news items. And it wasn’t exactly a non-event either years earlier with the arrival of Vietnamese boat people.

All of this has caused a great deal of fracturing and polarisation, and added greatly to the mistrust of government and of authority per se.

Any effort to eliminate it from our long list of contentious issues would surely be a good thing.

I find it quite strange that you’d be willing to accept a continuous sporadic and at times quite substantial rate of arrivals, given all the problems associated with it.

In terms of numbers, if more than a trickle did arrive, it would most definitely cause an escalation in the magnitude of the political and social aspects, which would most definitely result in a clamp-down on the whole business. So, the only way that it would be acceptable to the Australian populace and hence to government would be for it to remain at a very low rate indeed. And if it is to be at such a low rate, and hence not at all worth the trouble compared to the humanitarian value, then why wouldn’t efforts be made to stop it once and for all?

I mean, surely it is just plain commonsense to put an end to all of this and concentrate our humanitarian efforts elsewhere….in a manner that is both much more acceptable to the vast majority of Australian citizens and that is much more useful in addressing refugee issues at their sources and in accommodating some of the most needy bona fide refugees.

“ ‘Border protection’ is a classic jingoistic trope…”

Could you please clarify this CJ. Thanks.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 3:07:21 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
Ludwig, with your last post you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly the point, to prevent people resorting to desperate measures and taking out on leaky boats to get here.

That's why if we had a large number of humanitarian visas and it was known that if you are a genuine refugee your chances of getting to Australia is actually a reasonable possibility, there would be little excuse to venture out in a dismal boat.

Of course there'll still be people too impatient, or desperate, who will attempt coming here by boat, but is it rational to act as if these people must be the most dangerous, the most evil and therefore not entitled to courteous, efficient and professional treatment? Especially thinking of how we believe justice is to be applied, why Australia is such a desirable place to live.

It is not an OK way for refugees to come to Australia as some do, but is also not OK for some of us to act as if there is an invasion occurring. The reaction is way out of proportion. Australia is so far away we will never have the floods that are occurring in Europe.

We have a new football stadium in our suburb that seats 30 000, I can tell you about floods of undesirables! We can quite easily manage the couple of thousand that evade our border patrols in a decent manner.

By the way, is it in any way shape or form logical to claim that 'boat people' must be rich because they pay people smugglers? If they were rich they'd pay a quality forger for quality papers and buy a ticket out for a 'holiday', 'business trip', 'education/training' in Australia. Because as we all know, it all about 'Papers'.

Fractelle, you certainly got ColR stirred up! As you know anybody who has disagreed with him has been subjected to belittling comments and emotive epithets. And woe betide you if you respond in kind! Doesn't he adore his copy and paste? At least it means he keeps on reading your previous posts.
Posted by Anansi, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:39:40 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
*That's why if we had a large number of humanitarian visas and it was known that if you are a genuine refugee your chances of getting to Australia is actually a reasonable possibility, there would be little excuse to venture out in a dismal boat.*

Given the fact that there are roughly 20 million refugees at any
one time, wether we took 10'000 a year or 30'000 a year, would
hardly increase their odds of a cushy life in Australia. What
you call a dismal boat is fairly standard in the third world,
so why should they not have a go, if its relatively easy?

Fact is that we are not so isolated. The Indonesians regularly
fish in our waters, all in so called leakey boats.

Fact is, the easier we make it, the more will come. Given the
difficulty in renegotiating international treaties (the UN
does not really do things in a hurry), the best option is to
stick to Howard's doctrine, ie. we will decide who comes to
Australia. Fair enough, it seems the majority of Australians
still agree with that concept.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 6 December 2008 8:39:46 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,

You quote the following words of mine to illustrate ad hominem attacks:

1. “A pair of neocons out with lemmings”
2. “hateful psychobabble”
3. “Polycarpian scare-monger with half-truths and exaggerations.”

No. 1 is an accurate description of you and your mate (although the lemmings bit was a word-play on an earlier post).

No. 2 is a description of hate-inciting nonsense dressed up in psychological jargon. Again accurate.

No. 3 describes Polycarp's usual modus operandum. Again demonstrably accurate.

Now, when you tell Fractelle, "you cannot defend Moron’s stoicism in the face of ad hominem attacks when he and you have been authors of so many", you are truly engaged in ad hominem attack. CJ Morgan is intelligent and articulate and knows an argument based on logic and evidence.

Your 'moron' ad hominem is clearly used to save you the effort of actually responding to his arguments.

You remind me of GB Shaw's drama critic who complains that the playright's name had been withheld from a private show. "How can I tell whether it's a good play," he demanded, "unless I know who wrote it?" (Ref: Stuart Chase, 'Guides to Straight and Crooked Thinking')

Free advice: read the posting before reading the name of the poster.
Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 7 December 2008 11:06:12 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
Anansi & Spikey

I always know I have gotten the better of Col when he launches into character assassination. If he put as much effort into providing real evidence for his views (other than hearsay) we may be able to engage in a productive debate.

As I have previously stated:

1. We need border control
2. We need swift and effective processing of refugees.
3. Leaving people to languish in refugee camps indefinitely is unreasonable and cruel. I and many others have provided substantive links to prove such.
4. We also need to evaluate a sustainable level of immigrants/refugees intake. This means active education, housing and placement of migrants where they are needed.

Some facts to consider:

34 million people around the world today have been displaced by war and conflict

On average refugees live in “temporary” camps for 17 years.

Around 13,000 refugees come to Australia each year

Some refugee camps in Africa have one doctor for every 100,000 refugees

Some refugee camps hold as many as 500,000 people

Globally, up to 6,000 refugees die everyday from cholera and other diseases

Two in 10 babies die at birth in refugee camps due to lack of proper medical facilities
Malnutrition is associated with at least half the deaths of children under five in camps
Two-thirds of Darfur’s population are now living in “temporary” camps as refugees or internally displaced peoples
In Democratic Republic of Congo, 7% of the population have died from poverty and disease caused by conflict.
Today in Rwanda, there are as many as 20,000 children, now teenagers, born of Tutsi mothers raped in 1994 by Hutu men
The number of people displaced by war and conflict has increased nearly three-fold since the 1970s
There are as many as 250,000 child soldiers around the world

75 per cent of recent conflicts are fuelled by foreign powers

In 2004, 10 million people were unable to reach humanitarian assistance because of conflict

Source: United Nations High Commission for Refugees

We cannot solve all the world's problems, but we can certainly help
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 7 December 2008 12:22:07 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
*3. Leaving people to languish in refugee camps indefinitely is unreasonable and cruel. I and many others have provided substantive links to prove such.*

Fair enough. I agree that swift and fair processing is important.
In that case, it is only reasonable to expect that they turn up
with their papers in tact, othewise its they themselves who
are obstructing the efficient processing of their claims.

If documents are dumped overboard, of course there will be
huge delays. Gaining evidence from some places in the third
world, is not the easiest of things to do.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 7 December 2008 1:36:32 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
franklin: << Is CJMorgan against all forms of discrimination, and if so shouldn’t this discrimination be eliminated ? >>

I've already said both that the UN convention may well be in need of review and that our system of offshore processing needs to be improved. However, your claim of discrimination is as disingenuous as Mr Right's purported environmental concerns. Face it, you guys simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia and you'll use any specious argument you can to back up your xenophobia. While it may technically remove "discrimination" if absolutely no refugees made it to Australia, that would be an even less humane situation than the current approach.

Ludwig - "border protection" is a classic jingoistic trope because it's a figure of speech that is designed to stir up patriotic support for any government that deploys it in its propaganda. Howard's "We decide" rant following the Tampa incident was a highly successful example of such base political tactics.

It works because its sucks in not only the racists and rednecks, but also those like you whose concerns are motivated by somewhat less objectionable sentiments. It also feeds directly into fostering the kind of "civil unrest" you fear.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 8 December 2008 6:22:39 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
CJ, I’d call Howard’s “We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come” an eminently sensible lynchpin statement.

It is just so straightforward, benign and totally agreeable that it baffles me as to how anyone could have a problem with it or read anything devious into it.

Obvious the opposite; ‘we’ll let others, such as asylum seekers, decide whether or not they come here and under what circumstances’, is just totally untenable.

Whether or not a basic statement of fact or policy appeals to rednecks as well as to sensible people is completely incidental.

All policy positions need a simple statement that covers the basic motivation. All too often it is lacking, which leads to confusion in the general community. But in this instance, Howard nailed it.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 8 December 2008 6:46:00 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
We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come”.

Ludwig I’ve been trying to determine what it is about this quote that’s objectionable. I recall thinking at the time “there’s one for the headlines and won’t it go down well?”

Sadly we do not decide everything that occurs in and around Australia. For example treaties, declarations and conventions concerning the movement of people between countries are an acknowledgement this takes place and not every country is equipped to deal with it. Regardless of what is said asylum seekers will come; refugees will arrive on our shores; authorities will tie up resources dealing with it. “Border protection” has a nice ring to it but doesn’t accurately describe the situation. “Border administration” would be more accurate.

Uncle Johnny certainly lent assurance to many that he’d look after us and protect us from the swarthy hordes and give sensible fatherly advice when needed. He was talking through his hat.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 8 December 2008 8:06:15 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
I recall disgraced President Nixon, when he initiated contact with the Chinese government in Beijing made comment to China’s human rights record and the right of people to freely travel as they wish and their right to leave a country. The reported Chinese response was..

if you mean Chinese refugees, how many would you like, 10 million, 20 million ?

Nixon apparently declined the offer.

“34 million people around the world today have been displaced by war and conflict”

The notion that they should all come to Australia for resettlement is a complete crock of tish.

“Solving “ the discomfort of those 34 million will only ever be achieved by plans which deal with the problems creating these displaced people, not by pretending an open boards policy would solve anything (other than adding 20 million Australians to the list).


And doubtless the 34 million does not include the “economic refugees” of the India, CSri Lanks, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who use poor documentation and confusion as a cover for their attempts at fraudulent migration.


As Ludwig right states in support of the Howard governments view

“We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come”

It is “An eminently sensible lynchpin statement.”

My previous post stated “It is not the right of anyone, anywhere, least of all non-citizens, to deliberately evade Australian migration officials by landing on a deserted beach and pretending they are refugees. The polite word for that is “Anarchy”.”

So throw all the tish at me that you want, I am used to being on the receiving end of abuse by the scornful.

The truth and reality is as I have stated.


This is like using Round-Up, the intention is to spray the weeds.


Have a nice day all....
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 8 December 2008 8:20:50 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
bennie,

If Europe isn't relevant, how about the US and Canada, which are separated from the main asylum seeker source countries by a lot more water than we are? This graph shows asylum seeker numbers by country for 2001, before the Europeans tightened up their procedures, i.e. when they had the more humane system the refugee advocates want.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigation-asylum-seekers

The big numbers in Europe were certainly a concern to the Labor government and to Gerry Hand, the Immigration Minister in 1992 when they introduced mandatory detention. (See the Parliamentary Library briefing papers on asylum seekers.) If you want to claim that Australia is somehow different from almost all the other developed countries, apart from New Zealand, which is really hard to reach in an irregular way, please present some evidence.

The idea that Australia somehow has unlimited space for more and more people needs to be retired, as most of the country is uninhabitable, and in any case, the asylum seekers mostly go to the cities. We have outgrown our water supplies everywhere apart from Tasmania and the tropical North. Today's Sydney Morning Herald contains an item about how the NSW government is planning to build houses on a piece of critically endangered habitat with several endangered species. In terms of usable land and water, we are crowded.

If you say that you want a more humane system, but not open borders, then you need to explain how we will deal with problems such as the Europeans and Americans have experienced: people who have destroyed their travel documents so the home country can't be identified or has an excuse to refuse to cooperate, people who abscond (with the aid of shonky employers) when their claims look likely to fail, and people who resort to lengthy and expensive appeal procedures that can be used to drag things out while they embed themselves in the community.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 8 December 2008 10:42:31 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
You might have read too much into my post Divergence. My reply was about Howard's populist grandstanding. We would do better establishing better vetting procedures. Provided we accommodate our humanitarian obligations we can enact any law we like.

Unless you're saying we're not up to it. From many posts the difficulty in establishing bona fides seems to be a, if not the, major problem.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 8 December 2008 10:56:09 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
In the meantime, the sixth boat of would-be illegal entrants since Labor’s election has arrived in our waters. I have just finished writing to the Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans about this.

I too was highly amused, Col Rouge, by Fractelle’s praise for CJ
Morgan for his “ignoring (of) ad hominem attacks.” What a silly one-eyed person she is: totally ignoring the vicious bile handed out by CJ Morgan.

Fractelle is shaping up to be the female version of CJ Morgan. She also needs to get a Thesaurus: ‘ad hominem’ has been done to death!

Ludwig is nicely tying Mad Dog Morgan (CJ has a similar attitude to society, and could even be descended from the bushranger) up in knots. This subject has caused the most uproar, unrest and difference of opinion in any time since the Vietnam War and conscription. And I don’t think the huge number of responses to Bruce Haigh’s article can be put down to any cleverness on his part. It is, and will always be, a contentious, with uproar and unrest. Remember, there are millions of people out their who don't post on OLO.

Mad Dog still likes to talk about me I see: “…as disingenuous as Mr Right's purported environmental concerns.” My environmental concerns are not ‘disingenuous’ – they are ‘frank’, ‘candid’ and ‘sincere’. As for “Face it, you guys simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia…” , I do not think I have ever made any secret of the fact that I don’t want refugees coming here. That does not make me a xenophobe. I am greatly concerned about Australia’s burgeoning population, and I do not believe we should be taking anyone in. But, if you want to focus refugees only, yes, I have said that the whole refugee business is a giant con job, and I don’t like it. I have never tried to hide the fact that I do not want refugees coming to Australia.

I would not want them under any circumstances. I hope that is clear enough.
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 8 December 2008 10:57:47 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
Leigh/Mr Wrong: << My environmental concerns are not ‘disingenuous’ >>

Yeah right. You've certainly shown yourself to be a true environmentalist under your various guises here:

<< It is rather premature to get excited over ‘alternative’ energy sources >>

<< A carbon-neutral lifestyle would not achieve anything, given that climate change (the touted reason for such a lifestyle) is brought about by natural causes >>

<< “Australia must reduce greenhouse pollution as quickly as possible to the lowest levels possible…” is the typically naïve call from young lefties who have never had responsibility for anything, including themselves >>

<< When we have had our economy driven backwards by the costs your mates intend to levy on us, and the climate still changes back in its own good time, you and your mates will be the ones to look "absurd". >>

<< If we listen to the greenies, in a few generations hence humans will be back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat >>

<< The only thing to be said about wind power is that its apparatus is an ugly blot on the skyline >>

<< Global warming, climate/change, end the world – whatever - will prove to be the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind since ancient sea voyagers were supposed to drop off the end of the earth if they went too far from home >>

Leigh also claims not to be a xenophobe, but again his posting histories make a liar of him. Indeed, a quick glance reveals not only xenophobia, but racism - particularly against Aborigines.

Why am I not surprised?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 8 December 2008 4:07:44 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
Mr Right: "I have never tried to hide the fact that I do not want refugees coming to Australia. I would not want them under any circumstances. I hope that is clear enough."

Shut the gates! Pull up the drawbridge! Turn off the lights. Time for beddy-byes. Uncle Leigh is going to tell us all a story about how his very own family came to Australia. And how from that day on, nobody else was ever going to spoil his perfect world. His dreamtime.

Shhhh! Don't wake him up. In his dream it's only 1945.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 8 December 2008 10:19:49 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
Some interesting facts regards TPVs in today's letters page of The Australian.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 8:47:27 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
CJMorgan, as a matter of interest, what is your attitude towards unhcr refugees who cannot afford to pay large amounts of money to people smugglers to travel around the world and enter affluent western countries to seek refuge. And what is you attitude towards Australia’s humanitarian refugee resettlement program. Do you believe that Australia’s refugee resettlement program should be aimed towards those most in need ? Or do you believe it is perfectly acceptable that those with substantial financial resources be granted resettlement in Australia ahead of others in perhaps more dire need who do not have the financial resources required to pay people smugglers ?

CJMorgan, before answering you might like to peruse the following link:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:vGJ0uy-e9CAJ:www.erc.org.au/index.php%3Fmodule%3Ddocuments%26JAS_DocumentManager_op%3DdownloadFile%26JAS_File_id%3D5+kakuma+edmund+rice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 11:27:16 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
CJMorgan: “Face it, you guys simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia and you'll use any specious argument you can to back up your xenophobia.

CJMorgan, please take a look through all of my previous posts and then please explain in a logical manner how you deduce that I “simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia”. I would think that the logical deduction from my postings would be that my strong preference is for refugee resettlement places to go to those most in need (such as unhcr refugees in squalid refugee camps) , and that I don’t consider by any means that secondary movement asylum seekers with many thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers as being those most in need and should take preference.

CJMorgan, please also take a look through all of my previous posts and then please explain in a reasoned manner how you deduce that I will “use any specious argument you can to back up your xenophobia”. In my postings I have provided links to various newspaper articles and academic papers, are these to be considered as “specious arguments” ? In particular are the logical and reasoned papers by Monash University academic Adrienne Millibank on this subject to be considered as “specious arguments.

CJMorgan: “While it may technically remove "discrimination" if absolutely no refugees made it to Australia, that would be an even less humane situation than the current approach.”

I respectfully disagree. If no secondary movement asylum seekers were being delivered by people smugglers, places in Australia’s refugee resettlement could be allocated to a greater extent based on need rather than on financial ability to pay people smugglers. I think that would be a very much more humane situation than allowing people smugglers to decide to whom Australia’s refugee resettlement places should be allocated to. Note that those who would have paid many thousands of dollars to people smugglers could still apply for resettlement, albeit from a country of first asylum and processed in accordance with unhcr procedures in the same manner as the majority of the world’s refugees
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 2:25:16 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
Franklin, the fact that someone can raise enough money to pay a people-smuggler doesn't imply in any way that their fears of harm or persecution are not well-founded. The guy who was returned to Afghanistan to be thrown down a well and blown up is a case in point.

Most probably unlike you, I've actually met and known refugees who've arrived here by boat and also those who've been accepted from camps in Kenya and Uganda. What they all have in common is the fact that they had to leave their countries of origin because their lives were in danger, either from warfare, religious persecution or famine.

Your posts have cleverly focused on "secondary movement" asylum seekers as a way of avoiding the issue that such refugees are overwhelmingly every bit as bona fide as are those who come from UN-run camps in Africa. I think that your focus is designed to obscure your generalised antipathy to any refugees being accepted into Australia.

Just out of interest, framklin, perhaps you could tell us how many bona fide refugees Australia should accept, from whence they should come and on what basis they should be prioritised?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 8:04:27 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
Franklin “I think that would be a very much more humane situation than allowing people smugglers to decide to whom Australia’s refugee resettlement places should be allocated to.”

Absolutely agree

Abdicating the process of “refugee selection” to overseas criminal gangs is to endorse anarchy.

Yet, we continue to see how some “bleeding hearts” are prepared to abdicate the right of Australians to select who will be allowed to settle in Australia by the temper tantrums of moronic anarchistic ranters.

The other point is, those people who pay criminal gangs to help them to evade the Australia migration processes are the sort of people who would fail to qualify, on “good character” grounds for a residency or any other form of visa
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 9:00:01 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
Currently the Herald Sun's poll on whether or not 15 foreign homeless World Soccer players should be granted assylum is running at:

No - 76%

Yes- 23%

Now let's hear what 'heartless bastards' the majority of Herald Sun readers must be.

Perhaps they feel that our own homeless should be housed first.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:58:07 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
Mr Right "Perhaps they feel that our own homeless should be housed first."

Doubtless, I am courting the risk of criticism and castigation by some of our more self-righteous brethren

But being undeterred from my right to express a view -

I always find it strange the way the "m" (between the "o" and the "e") replaces the "p" in what is really being observed......
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 11:26:00 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
Ah the Herald Sun, home of Australia’s loudest peabrain Andrew Bolt. If world peace came tomorrow he’d complain arms manufacturers were doing it tough.

“Perhaps they feel that our own homeless should be housed first” suggests Mr Right. Maybe they do. Here’s some of what they said:


“Bring all their relatives here through family reunion they stay we pay more, they are nothing more than queue jumpers.” (go join the queue in Harare, open 9 to 5 weekdays)

“They will be entitled to $429.00 per fortnight of centerlinks money…they will also be elligable to recieve up to $60 rent assistance… HUNT THEM DOWN & Deport them NOW” (we’re not gonna smoke ‘em out first?)

“All of a sudden Pauline Hansons views arn't looking to bad are they” (pity she didn’t campaign on improving literacy standards)


Many comments carried on about ‘illegals’, queue jumping etc, all very shock-jock-ish, especially when considering those involved have formally applied for extensions of their visa. 250 pilgrims also applied for asylum after WYD but they were nice Christian illegals so they don’t really count.

Yep, they’re sure having trouble finding it in their hearts to overlook our own homeless, Mr Right.

To be fair some did mention our domestic situation comes first. None acknowledged there may be merit in considering asylum due to their countries of origin - Zimbabwe and Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. True to the spirit of Pauline they cited the likelihood of them carrying aids as a reason to send them home. I’m confident none here at OLO would be so quick to condemn.

Col if there’s any one thing in common among the long-term homeless it’s a mental disorder to some degree or other. Many are literally hopeless and will be wherever they sleep. Personally I think unless they fit the criteria they should return whence they came.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:08:26 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
A billion people probably face the same prospect and most Aussies rightfully dont care.

Id rather my charity goes to Pakistani or Chinese Earthquake victims than abled bodied parasites who come to Australia.

Every ATM these Middle Eastern thugs blow up, every one incarcerated or on welfare that is less charity available for the truly needy like pakistani earth quake victims.
Posted by donaldstuff, Saturday, 20 December 2008 6:55:06 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://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1418266.php/Iraqi_immigrant_remanded_on_double_murder_charges_in_New_Zealand

There was a very serious Iraqi serial rapist and double murderer in New Zealand.

There was also the Indian Muslim overstayer who molested 2 girls at Chadstone, Melbourne.

These are just the known cases.
Posted by donaldstuff, Saturday, 20 December 2008 6:58:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

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