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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Refugees and peddling fear > Comments

Refugees and peddling fear : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 27/10/2009

Wilson Tuckey has blown the dog whistle on Tamil Tiger terrorists arriving in Australia by boat.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
From what I have read today it turns out Tuckey was correct and Haigh was lying.
Posted by ozzie, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 10:34:23 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
Yes, Bruce you were most effectively dog-whistled by PM Rudd, not by Wilson Tuckey.

If it were really outraged by what Tuckey said, then you would have been outraged when ALP MP Michael Danby said EXACTLY the same thing several months ago.

That had no reaction from you at all .. why is that? no dog whistle to go a long with it?

So off you go Bruce, back to waiting for the next press release from he PM's office, so you'll know which conservative to attack next.

You really do fit the stereotype hysteric left wing reactionist .. it's not a problem unless you're told it is by PM Rudd.

If you really are outraged by what Tuckey said, how about some outrage at ALP MP Michael Danby? (OMG flying pig!)
Posted by odo, Thursday, 29 October 2009 5:35:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all taurine fertiliser. The issue for Rudd & Co is not whether there are a few Tamil Tiger terrorists among the latest boat people arrivals. No one is suggesting all asylum seekers be released into the community on arrival. Any terrorists can be weeded out during a short (say 3 months) period of detention and sent back to Sri Lanka. The rest could be granted refugee status.

The REAL issue is that Rudd & Co are politically embarrassed by what appears to be an increase in the number of boat people headed for Australia. They believe the Australian electorate will perceive they are weak on border security unless they act tough.

But how much of a problem would taking in 10-20 thousand boat people per annum actually be? To my mind, no problem at all. I think we could take in more refugees. On the whole I think boat people who have made it this far should be allowed to stay – subject of course to strict vetting.

But what many fear is that once Australia is seen to be a "soft touch" the number could blow out to 50 thousand plus.

What should be done if the numbers really do escalate? What if we start getting 100 + arrivals per day? To say that could not happen is simply naïve. It demonstrates ignorance of just how determined many people are to move themselves and their families to countries like Australia.

--Denial that a softly softly approach would cause a blow out of numbers is dishonest

--The current treatment regime is inhumane and unacceptable.

I have no easy answers
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 29 October 2009 6:56:22 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
Stevenlmeyer wrote:

"But how much of a problem would taking in 10-20 thousand boat people per annum actually be? To my mind, no problem at all. I think we could take in more refugees. On the whole I think boat people who have made it this far should be allowed to stay – subject of course to strict vetting."

There is a precedent to the taking in of 10-20 thousand 'boat people' per annum, except they didn't arrive by boat.

I am thinking of the Liberal's relaxation of the immigration requirements on 'humanitarian grounds' in the mid 1970s, which in the permitted a large number of Lebanese immigrants who did not meet the requirements then in place to be accepted as immigrants.

A discussion of this can be found at

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20996448-5018551,00.html

Whilst difficulties are found only in the case of a small number of immigrants from each group, it only takes a small number to cause a rift in social harmony.
Posted by Dougthebear, Thursday, 29 October 2009 8:04:53 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
Bruce,steven et al
Tuckey is using the oldest trick in the book for his bush electorate audience. NB the other curmudgeonly whackers in parliament they all do it they are simply playing the conservative paranoia card.

Of course there 'could' be an ex terrorist on those boat but the chances of them getting through is remote. Certainly a lot less than every-time an O.S. aeroplane lands in Australia.

Much as He thinks I'm loathed to do it, I agree with the thrust of Steven's post.

Yet another example of the inanity of our party political system.
It encourages drones to pander to ignorant/ill informed prejudices for selfish career reasons.

We should be concentrating on how to resolve or extricate our selves from other people's wars.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 29 October 2009 9:02:56 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
How can so many miss the point? According to the UNHCR there are 15 million official refugees and probably just as many unofficial refugees. If 250,000 Tamils are added to this long standing pool it has grown “officially” by less than 2%. Yet we are being asked to believe the government line that the huge increase in boatpeople is down to increased regional wars. Rubbish.

We will always get a similar mix of good guys and bad guys in boatpeople arrivals; we may even get some bad guys from those processed by the UNHCR. This is not the point; we all know that people smugglers are opportunistic traders making good money. Their opportunity to open up their Australian franchise was provided by sloppy populist comments from our own PM.

Tokenism always has unintended consequences, those caused by our PM and for which he should be held accountable are:

1. Adding to overall refugee misery by increased movements and setting false hopes.
2. Reigniting and inflaming the vexatious race and immigration debate
3. Putting at risk the developing relationship with Indonesia.
4. Exposing boatpeople to detention in a non UNHCR signatory country
5. Public costs of expansion of our detention facilities
6. Public costs of funding Indonesian detention facilities
7. The probable risk of being forced to process boatpeople on our mainland
8. The victory and opportunity that this would provide people smugglers
9. Setting public expectations that somehow detainees in Indonesia will be treated better than the Indonesians themselves.
10. International embarrassment and condemnation for Australia.
11. Highlight of the fact that we can’t even provide equivalent living conditions for our own indigenous people to those of detainees

The spin surrounding this debacle is nothing short of astonishing.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 29 October 2009 9:26:41 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
There is one aspect of the illegals from Sri Lanka that has not been touched on as yet.

If we accept the Tamils into Aus will they get on with the Sri Lankans all ready here or will there be violent conflict between various groups of Sri Lankans. Are those coming here, or attempting to, really fleeing persecution or are they fleeing prosecution for crimes committed during the civil war. After 30 years of civil war,I reckon any government would be tough on those it suspects of war crimes.

So what about social conflict in Aus? Well we have seen the result of Fraser bringing all those leb muslims here and the anti-social aspects of them and their childrens behaviour. Also there is continueing violent conflict between the Serbs and Croats, which erupts far more often that we like.

In May there was violent confrontation between groups of Sri Lankans at Westmead and Wentworthville (Sydney suburbs) which was the subject of a NSW police media release dated 18-5-09. Apparently in serveral clashes that involved up to 50 men, one was hospitalised. there was a home invasion where a man was stabbed and had his ankle broken and was in serious condition in hospital. Anothe man had acid poured over him and was in an induced coma in Concord hospital burns unit (outcome not known). That is not our way of resolving differences.

Maybe we should take these incidents as a warning and have a very hard look at just who we allow into the country.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 30 October 2009 10:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

Spindoc,
I would argue that many of us do see the point of what you say and even agree to superficially.
The problem I have is that many are merely subjective perceptions on your part.
I don't follow the logic of points 1-4 .
I would argue that our neighbouring countries including Indonesia would get PO ed with us if we simply lumbered them with the 'flood'. How long do you think the Indonesians would tolerate the increases if we did? They would simply move them on and the flood would be simply pass through and we'd get them all. Our border control would be more busy than than island fire dancer. The HRC would go ballistic if we kept them on overcrowded island prisons.
5- 8 will be inevitable if we and the world don't invest in the eradicating the causes.
9 most people work on out of sight out of mind.
10 same as 1-4.
11 true-ish but there are different issues at stake.

My point was what's the answer as demonstrated the Pacific solution is doomed even if we spend the money in that way.

I would suggest the cost benefit for the type of military expenditures currently undertaken the wars etc. are having an economic impact on this negative impact on this country in that it's simply one way without a payback bombs don't solve anything But the same money spent on giving the refugees at home might.

NB I have no answers either just a few abstract thoughts that need more work. Conversely Neither party can get past 'instant' knee jerk responses. Clearly the better solution is to stop them leaving but how?

The ones on the ship now will determine much.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 30 October 2009 11:12:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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