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 > Christian values and asylum seekers in an election year > Comments

Christian values and asylum seekers in an election year : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 25/3/2010

With an election looming later this year the political lunatics are out hunting for asylum seekers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
As a Christian I think you are more than justified in calling our politicians to live up to the values of the faith they profess.

It always staggers me that when the major story line of the Bible is that God welcomes and saves into his family those who are undeserving, that Christians can have such an unwelcoming attitude to refugees.
Posted by APR, Thursday, 25 March 2010 9:51:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It astounds me that Susan and others with a certain ideology can't understand the simple fact that many people waiting to come here legally have just as heart breaking stories if not more than many who come here illegally. She seems blind to the fact that the encouragement of these boat people under Rudd has cost an unknown number of people their lives. I often wonder why the left want to hide behind what they call compassion when their policies lead to such misery.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:34:54 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
What a powerful piece of writing! Congratulations and thank you, Susan Metcalfe!

I'm writing from Bangkok where I've been living for most of the last five years. I've been very concerned for some time about the whippping up of hysteria about boat people by Opposition politicians and the media and wondering what we can do to show it up as widely as possible for the vicious and cynical opportunism it is.

Thailand, which claims religion to be one of its three central values, has never signed the UN COnvention on Refugees. There are much larger numbers of undocumented refugees here. Illegal migrant workers from neighboring counties are ruthlessly exploited by employers and the police. Recently, hundreds of Hmong refugees were deported to Laos, including some who had been documented as refugees by the UN and promised visas by third countries. There is currently some publicity being given to the case of Rohingya refugees from Burma who are rotting in the Immigration Detention Centre in Bangkok, with the government doing nothing more about them. The UNHCR is not allowed access to them. The laughing Deputy Immigration Commissioner said in an Aljazeera English TV interview yesterday that he wanted NGOs to take them out of Thailand. Two of the Rohingya group, young men, died of neglect of medical conditions in the detention centre in Ranong. Several other disabled boatloads of Rohingya had previously been towed back out to sea by the Thai navy after arriving in Thai waters without food or drinking water. Some of them survived and washed up in Indonesia. Unknown numbers are presumed to have perished.

It is very distressing that Australian politicians and sections of the media want Australia to to descend again to this level of policy and behaviour.

BTW, my family's experience of sectarian bitterness is very similar to Susan's.
Posted by tonyf, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:39:10 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
runner

Our views have nothing whatever to do with left-wing or any other ideology! The governments of the world need to get together urgently and work out ways of meeting the needs of refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution whether they are in refugee camps or not. That is what we need to demand of our own governments.
Posted by tonyf, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:47:43 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
Good on you Susan. You make some very astute points that the media seem 'aqua minded' when it comes to shock horror reporting of bugger all people arriving by boats.

Its a sign of these post modernist times that the most shrill and strident critics of immigration are anti-populationists and a rainbow coalition of feral bearded gnomes from Sustainable Population Australia.

For example the Greens want refugees treated humanely, they just want less refugees AND immigrants because they see them as rabbits eating our precious food.

These people are not environmentalists, they are instrumentalists and their means are exactly the same as racists. 'Turn immigration back to 1930s levels and push the darkies back with a stick'.

They are doing incredible damage to the environment movement and soon people will turn against them.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 25 March 2010 11:01:27 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
Excellent article, Susan Metcalfe. Asylum seekers will certainly be an issue in the forthcoming election. I expect it will be ugly.

Indeed, it already is:

Cheryl: << For example the Greens want refugees treated humanely, they just want less refugees AND immigrants because they see them as rabbits eating our precious food >>

Not that anybody takes you and your "anti-pop" nonsense seriously, but that's an outright lie.

This is what Bob Brown actually said, a week or so ago:

<< Australia’s population should be determined by the capacity of our environment and our infrastructure,” said Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown.

Australia cannot support an increase in population to 35 million by 2050.

Immigration should not be stopped.

In fact Australia should increase its humanitarian immigration program, but we need to reduce our skilled migration program and balance that reduction by investing in skills training for Australians. >>

http://widebaygreens.org/2010/03/australian-greens-call-for-national-inquiry-into-population-growth/

Why do Green-haters so often tell porkies?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 25 March 2010 12:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity had nothing to do with illegals entrants or politicians. If we start going down that road, we may as well be like Muslim countries. Illegal entrants and asylum seekers are the subject of politics, law and public opinion.

Howard got it right when he said that Australians are the ones who should be deciding who comes here and how. He is a Christian, so let’s cut the religious bulldust out of it altogether. People can base their personal lives on any myth they choose. Start doing that with government and law, and down the gurgler we go.

Applications for asylum in Australia have increased by 30%, and we have had 26 illegal boats arrive in less than three months; all because the current government is too soft. We are a laughing stock. The refugee business is still the biggest con ever perpetrated by the UN. The worst con of all is religion, and Christianity is no better than all the others.

We do not need any more self-serving bludgers; we do not even need any more legitimate immigrants
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:14:48 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
Leigh, I will copy and paste my reply to you from another forum. You sound like you don't like anyone - I'm really sorry your life is so sad. We are not a laughing stock. - Yes it is true that the world is not being flooded by asylum seekers as the refugee haters would have us believe but numerous countries recorded increases in 2009. From the report: 'There is a particularly large increase in the number of asylum applications registered in Denmark (+59%), Finland (+47%) and Norway (+19%).' Belgium also increased by 40%, etc. So although Australia's increase was 30% this is really not out of alignment with many other countries, while others have gone down for various reasons. Most of Australia's applications were from Chinese people arriving by plane, Afghanistan was the next source country (mostly boat arrivals) but worldwide applications from Afghan people rose by 45% in 2009. Afghanistan was the largest source country worldwide, the first time they have been at the top of the list since 2001 (a time when Australia was also receiving more applications from Afghanistan under John Howard)
Posted by Meander, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:32:56 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
Hang on CJ Morgan, you're one of the loudest voices for the 'anti-pops' and you say immigration should not be stopped? Is that right? I can hear the howls from Kanck and the Unsustainble People now.

Not enough food to feed em? Well we shipped $27 billion overseas last year and imported $600 million through reciprocal treaty arrangements.

I'm amazed that the Green's sane enviromental agenda has been hijacked by the same anti-GST, social left whackos who infected the old Democrats. It's a shame.

I'm not a big God botherer but if Christ returned tomorrow, do you really think he's understand what we're talking about when the anti-pops want to push the boats back out to sea?
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:43:29 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
Even the UN is scathing of Rudd’s incompetence and softness with illegals:

“ THE UN's refugee agency has warned that the Rudd government's decision to allow dozens of Sri Lankan boatpeople in Indonesia to jump the immigration queue will encourage others to try similar tactics.” (‘The Australian’ 25.3/10)

Instead of allowing a boat load of illegals to remain Indonesia’s problem (they wouldn’t take responsibility for the 79 rescued in their waters by an Australian customs vessel), Rudd has done another foolish deal to encourage more illegals to come to Australia.

The UNHCR has decided that Rudd’s provision of a ‘special deal’ for the latest lot of blackmailers is “…bad practice” because “There are Sri Lankan refugees who have been sitting in Indonesia for some time.”

The UNHCR believes that Australia should not be giving in to these people because it encourages what he described as “a form of “queue-jumping”.

The Australian also reports that the Rudd government’s asylum seeker policy has “helped spark a fresh surge in the number of boat people coming to Australia.”

Rudd continues to blame everything but his pathetic open door policy; while there are more than 11 million genuine refugees patiently waiting in camps, Rudd allows the blackmailers and shonks to come on over when it suits them.

Another Christian who doesn’t believe in a fair go.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meander,

You can meander all over the place, preaching as you go.

I don't have any interest in you or your opinions.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:56:23 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
CJ Morgan, applaud your post.
Cheryl, am sure your heart is in the right place , but CJ is right, its got to based on science, no point sending a holed life boat out to rescue the drowning surfer if the boat is not prepared in the first place, if you grasp the analogy.
I fully agree that globalist capitalism and neo colonialism is wasteful and does not the answer the needs of billions of poor people in the world.
I also agree that these poor pitiful victims from Afghanistan, Africa, SriLanka ,etc, represent only a trickle of the numbers coming here and they are victims of a corrupt global system.
But it has been true for some time that the system here needs to reform itself ALSO, prior to, carting large numbers of people into the country, eg Murray-Darling, cstchment areas, monocultures, biodiversty,soil degradation, climate change etc need to be addressed before radically increased immigration occurs.
Otherwise you just create the conditions for poverty to appropriate this country as well.
Posted by paul walter, Thursday, 25 March 2010 3:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was Bob Brown who recently noted that the Rudd government doesn't actually have a population plan down on paper, that's why he's calling for a parliamentary enquiry.
The lack of a plan is alarming enough given everyone's eagerness to have a "Big" Australia, even when Rudd & co do implement the advice they pay so dearly for they manage to make a hash of it.
Free insulation anyone?
All of the theoretical problems the Greens raise could be avoided by implementing the right technology and completely changing the way we live.It's disappointing to see a so called Environmental party wasting so much time on Left Wing lifestyle concerns such as Gay marriage and refugee justice when they could be devoting all their efforts to promoting sustainable living.
If we can't live in a sustainable way now how are we going to cope with double the population?
As Aboriginal activist Robbie Thorpe said on 3CR the other day "The times of plenty are over" we have to come up with a whole new way of life for Australians if we're going to, not only survive as a modern society but actually make progress.
The question is who's going to work toward that goal, and will the immigrants coming here take to sustainable living or will they insist on a 20th century version of the "Australian Dream"?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 25 March 2010 3:44:32 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
"In fact Australia should increase its humanitarian immigration program, but we need to reduce our skilled migration program and balance that reduction by investing in skills training for Australians."

Is one of the most moronic "mother hood" statements I have heard in a long while.

Improved skills training at home is a goal that everyone will agree with, but given the time and money taken to train engineers, doctors etc from the final years of high school, university, several years of post graduate training, is not going to provide the skills needed today but maybe in a decade or more. A few more Tafe or Uni places is not going to cut it. (that's assuming you have the kids with the IQ and schooling to fill them)

It is well known relationship that highly skilled people create employment for others. Bringing in illiterate and largely unemployable people creates a need for the skills to create the jobs to employ them, and therefore increases the need for skilled immigration.

Given that a large portion of the population growth is from people living longer, and that we are looking at 25% over 65 by 2040, which means we need the economic engine to provide services for this aging population. These low skilled immigrants are likely to put a strain on the welfare resources rather than add to them.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 25 March 2010 3:54:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow nice way to show your compassionate christianity runner and leigh.
If god really existed people like you two would be first in line for a smiting. Do you not know gods views on people who profess to believe but act against gods demands?
Was it not your savior who said......
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"
(Matthew 25.35-40 ESV)

Is it not written in your holy books?

"You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate."
Luke 6:36
"If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion—how can God’s love be in that person?"
1 John 3:17
"Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother."
Zechariah 7:9
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them,
because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd"
Matthew 9:36
"Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers,
for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it!"
Hebrews 13:2
"Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling"
1 Peter 4:9
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: '
It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
Acts 20:35

Hmmmmmm?
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 25 March 2010 4:22:18 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
Leigh says

<Even the UN is scathing of Rudd’s incompetence and softness with illegals:

“ THE UN's refugee agency has warned that the Rudd government's decision to allow dozens of Sri Lankan boatpeople in Indonesia to jump the immigration queue will encourage others to try similar tactics.” (‘The Australian’ 25.3/10)

Instead of allowing a boat load of illegals to remain Indonesia’s problem (they wouldn’t take responsibility for the 79 rescued in their waters by an Australian customs vessel), Rudd has done another foolish deal to encourage more illegals to come to Australia.

The UNHCR has decided that Rudd’s provision of a ‘special deal’ for the latest lot of blackmailers is “…bad practice” because “There are Sri Lankan refugees who have been sitting in Indonesia for some time.”

The UNHCR believes that Australia should not be giving in to these people because it encourages what he described as “a form of “queue-jumping”.>

What a load of unmitigated KRA*P!

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone of importance or official status ever said anything remotely like that; perhaps one of the anti Labor hacks at the Australian might have imagined it!

If you are going to state BIG BOLD untruths then at least try to make them plausible. As if any global body is going to criticize any country's leader in a public statement...jeesh you guys don't even try to be sensible!

cont...
Posted by Peter King, Thursday, 25 March 2010 5:35:29 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
cont...

As you all know but prefer to obscure is that most of the "uninvited" (I refuse to call them illegals as any refugee has the absolute right to seek asylum where they can) come by airplane and are processed without the vindicative rubbish that people like Leigh espouse.

It is delusional to assume that Howard and the Liberals solved the refugee problem - all they did was move boat people to Nauru thereby paying massive amounts of money (yes a great big tax on all of us) to keep these poor people hidden from the public eye and support a failing economy in a tiny island nation. Of course smugglers reduced the number of people sent after a year or so but it destroyed our international credibility; it proved Australia was unwilling to abide by signed international agreements and most importantly it cost vastly more than if we had accepted and processed the refugees locally.
Posted by Peter King, Thursday, 25 March 2010 5:35:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms. Metcalfe,

Your principles are impeccable; your zeal laudable, you are too young.

Of those who recruited me to your country on condition that I had the elementary school certificate and no family, I think little but I admire the Aboriginal people and their culture.

The European inhabitant here, I found pretentious, divisive, and stolid as the ones I had left in my birthplace.

No priest of ideological constructs, religious or political, is credible. A logician has proved that all priests and politicians are positively criminals, none excluded.

The two pieces of new legislation enacted under the Howard Empire (democracy being a succession of Empires) that I found inhumane are the one that goes under the name of Business Migration and the one called Privacy Law, the first discriminatory the other perversely absurd, both open to abuse and cruelty.

I said ‘too young’ because you missed noting that in a group of people some are liars.

I found your article touching, positive and beautiful.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 25 March 2010 6:42:52 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
Mikk
Nothing like twisting the truth ah. I wonder where that comes from? The old fallacy that it is the left who have all the compassion despite what history shows. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who for the sake of protecting their own immorality many on the left promote the abortion trade.

Surely it is totally hypocritical to pretend to be compassionate and pretend to be the hardliners as the Rudd Government has and is. This sort of hypocrisy has led to people paying money and trying to get here illegally and drowning on the way. No one is stupid enough to not be able to see this ideology is flawed.

It seems quite ironic that someone who shows such contempt for Scripture finds himself/herself using or twisting it to support their own ideology.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 March 2010 6:42:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is the 'twist', Runner?
The quotes Mikk supplied all seem pretty authentic to me.
Which ones do you disagree with?
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 25 March 2010 7:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tonyf, thanks for your comment. The Rohingya teenager I mention in the article arrived in Indonesia on one of the boats that had been forced back out to sea by the Thai Government. Some of the others on the boat didn't survive. Thailand is even worse than Malaysia and Indonesia at least has some better level of treatment for many asylum seekers, thanks to Australia's assistance. It is hard to understand how people can interpret their religion in a way that allows such inhumanity. Susan Metcalfe
Posted by Susan M, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:18:09 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
Leigh
You’re wrong about Christianity having nothing to do with refugees. Theologian Marcus J. Borg describes the exile and Exodus as “the most important story” of the Jewish scriptures, and it strongly influences the NT. Moses, Daniel, Joseph, Abraham, Jacob, David, many of the prophets, the Babylonian exiles who wrote of their anguish in Psalm 137, Joseph and Mary, Jesus and Paul were all refugees. The bible repeatedly and explicitly refers to care for the stranger and alien as a central concern of ethics and social conventions – as mikk’s post clearly shows.

Runner,
Do you seriously believe that refugees would be better off staying in the camps than coming here? Don’t you realised that they take the risks they do because the situations they are in are intolerable – and, as the article points out, there is no orderly “queue” for them to join?

How you can take creationism literally but not the texts mikk quotes? And here are a few more:

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Exodus 22:21)

You will not oppress the alien; you know how an alien feels, for you yourselves were once aliens in Egypt.
(Exodus 23:9)

When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.33-34)
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skeptic, I'm not sure I really understand what you mean about lying, although I am happy to be called too young. If you mean that in a group of politicans that some are liars then perhaps you missed my irony. If you mean that there are liars amongst groups of asylum seekers then that is really the subject for a whole other essay of it's own. There are many people who lie within the human race, from all groups - people on these forums are not always presenting the truth - but any discussion of lying needs to come within a context and with an analysis of why people are lying. I have been lied to by so many people in my life, by politicians, people arriving on planes, boats, boyfriends, family members, but for very different reasons, some for more understandable and more easily forgiveable reasons than others. I guess the underlying point of the article is that the Christian politicians are either lying to themselves or to us. Susan Metcalfe
Posted by Susan M, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:31:51 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
Grim

I don't disagree with any of the Scriptures quoted by Mikk. It is the context that he/she is using that is deceitful as he/she and you I suspect well know. To encourage people to risk their lives is not compassionate as shown by the loss of life thus far.

Rhian

I don't think you can generalize when it comes to these refugees that are coming here. No doubt there are many who are desperate while others are just economic refugees (looking to bludge on the Australian tax payer). Many end up forming ghettos with no intention of integrating. As I said before there are numerous other people in just as bad if not worse situations who are waiting to come here. Our people should choose (through the Government)who they are to show compassion and generosity to and not be forced by some demented UN ideology
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 March 2010 9:53:24 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
There's no reason you can't claim to be a good Christian and a racist too.

Take the KKK for example, or a century of black slavery in America or the notion that black skinned people are hereditary bearers of a curse.

That's the beauty of it being "all things to all people" - you can twist it to justify anything you like and still claim to be righteous.

As for it being a potential election issue, it should be one of the things that should NOT be. How can you argue the merits of compassion in a healthy society without it becoming a mere financial or philosophical matter?
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: << one of the most moronic "mother hood" statements I have heard in a long while >>

It's not a motherhood statement, it's a policy statement. Australia has moral and treaty obligations to accept genuine refugees, therefore we must honour them. The same doesn't apply to economic/skilled migrants.

Under recent governments we have allowed our education and training infrastructure to decline to the point that we apparently have 'skills shortages' that never used to exist. According to some, the preferred resolution to this problem is to import skilled workers, rather than training those who are already here.

I don't agree with that. I guess that makes me a moron too.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:45:14 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
There are 2 paradigms at play here and one IS the high moral ground and the other is the usurper who convinced the world that he is the legal custodian of the high moral ground. You Never see life through the paradigm of good and evil. Where is the power source found, only in the life paradigm. Many years ago we passed a policeman on the road with a speed gun and he was writing out a ticket for a fellow motorist. My little son asked me why I never get pulled up by the police. My answer astounded me in its simplicity "Son if you don't break the law you are not subject to the law". If the asylum seakers follow Australian immigration law they would not be subject to the perils of lawbreakers. So it is not adhereing to christian values by being a lawbreaker.
Posted by Richie 10, Friday, 26 March 2010 4:33:09 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
Ah, so in the context of showing compassion to refugees (even treating them like 'neighbours') using quotes from the Bible is 'deceitful'.
What pray, would be an honest use of bible quotes?
So far on this thread I have counted at least 3 atheists in favour of treating refugees compassionately, and 2 Christians in favour of turning their backs on their 'brothers'.
Funny ol' world, innit.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 26 March 2010 5:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ritchie 10, when Jesus defended the adulterous woman, he didn't claim she was innocent of the crime she had been accused of; he simply said: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".
When asked which is the most important Law, he said, love your God with all your heart soul and mind, and the second law is like it.
"Love your neighbour as yourself".
I don't have to believe in the first part to see the wisdom in the second part, Runner, so where is the deceit?
If you believe the first part but not the second, you deceive yourself.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 26 March 2010 6:13:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richie 10 it is not illegal to seek asylum. We have obligations under the refugee convention and to uphold international law. These people have not broken laws and they are not criminals, it is only crimnal to punish them or treat them badly. You are not going to be sent back to die if you get a speeding fine and your astounding simplicity is naive if you think that justice will always comes from the law anyway. What lengths people will go to find an argument to justify treating people badly. I hope you will not be treated so badly by others when you need help.
Posted by Meander, Friday, 26 March 2010 7:14:43 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
Why does Susan take issue with racism yet find utter contempt of Christians acceptable? Christian groups are doing more than anyone to help refugees who get accepted to stay here.
Posted by benk, Friday, 26 March 2010 7:56:19 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
As an atheist I do NOT appreciate your trying to pander to theological guilt to advance your cause, thankyou Susan.

In my opinion, "liberal" Christians feeling everyone in the country owes refugees a haven are little different to the right-wing ones that feel we don't deserve the right to control our own bodies (not that this is exclusive of the 'right wing').

Anyway, absolutely allow refugees in quickly (as you said, we can do it for plane arrivals) if their character checks out , they are deemed likely to integrate and their boat wasn't sabotaged. But on suspicion of the contrary or suspicions they may be a threat to the public I feel any country is justified deporting them.

I think this simple principal should be how our refugee system would work.

In short, I find a country accepting and denying who it wants in the interests of its own citizens well-being to be a basic fundamental right, and if we can't live up to an agreement signed arbitrarily on our behalf under a politician whose party barely scraped 40% of the vote, the right thing would be to remove our signature.

And our politicians can leave their faith at the door- they're supposed to work for their people, not their gods.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 26 March 2010 8:51:07 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
Actually it is a bit superfluous to use the old furphy Christian values in this argument. Christian values are subject to interpretation and variance as you can see with runner's views compared to those Christian groups who have assisted refugees for some time. Christians are not a homogenous group and like any group of human beings do not all think the same.

Some Christians may argue that it is un-Christian to allow illegitimate unverified asylum seekers into the country at the expense of genuine asylum seekers. It is all subjective and diverts from the real issues.

To honour this agreement while at the same time addressing population sustainability, some planning and forethought would go a long way in ensuring adequate skills training to obviate the need for skilled mirgration. Education and training for refugees who may otherwise find it difficult to find work could add to the skill-sets.

Governments don't like to lose control of their borders - it is electorally unpopular. It is expensive and difficult processing asylum seekers particularly where there is often lack of identification and where many are found later not to be genuine.

Asylum seeker fraud and fear of terrorism also adds to the problem for genuine refugees. Lawyers also profit from this trade, drawing out cases, governments copping the flak for the delays in processing.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 26 March 2010 8:59:26 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
Rhian,

As an agnostic, I do not believe anything that is in the Bible.

I can only repeat my belief that religion of any kind has no place in the laws and mores of any secular society.

So there is no point in telling me I'm wrong, any more than there is any point in me telling you that you are wrong. It's all a matter of opinion.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 26 March 2010 9:03:03 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
Dear Grim,
Jesus Said that your own words would justify or condenm you. I never said innocent people are condenmed what I said was if you break the law you are subject to the law.
Meander I never said that christians should not have compassion or that it is illegal to seek asylum. Read what I said again until the understanding comes. Obey Australia's immigration law and you are not subject to the penalty for trying to circumvent the law.
Posted by Richie 10, Friday, 26 March 2010 9:12:19 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
Too right Leigh- I think anyone trying to hit people over the head with variations of the "but Jesus wouldn't endorse your viewpoints" might have to focus their lame tactic on a very small audience indeed!
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 26 March 2010 9:30:45 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
Susan raises interesting issues in this, apart from the obvious ones she writes about.

One is the state of The Australian newspaper, which has turned into a DLP Catholic enclave for those who still hanker after Santamaria, probably more than Jesus even, and the appalling standard of journalism they bring to our breakfast tables.

Another is the way in which Tim Costello is somehow always regarded as 'a decent fellow' and quoted to justify all sorts of matters, probably because he appears to be such a contrast to his brother. But people forget that Tim is a Baptist, and that crew of 'Christians' own some of the most appalling views in our community, perhaps just as bad as Brethren and Scientology. It is the Baptists who are crashing through the open doors of our public schools installing 'Christian mentors' to work with students in an attempt to evangelise and proselytise to them.

Rudd is, of course, as horrible as Abbott when all is said and done. Both wear their hypocrite hat as 'believers' and pushers of 'faith', along with what looks like about 98% of all our nations MPs, state and federal.

Clearly, being a 'Christian' does not bring any intelligence with it, or at least, not as a guarantee.

These same politicians are eager for 'free trade', and they were all too eager to dispense with low skill jobs, exporting them to China, Thailand, India and all places 'Asia' in the pursuit of 'free trade', while absolutely failing to alter how our education system works.

As a result, we still have a 19th century schooling system, full of low skill staff and poor management, onto which has been built an underfunded and backwoods tech and uni' system, which requires we import skilled people.

Clearly, we cannot just allow endless people to come and live here, however they arrive, and we do need a population/environment/'growth' policy to work out where we go.

The actual 'boat people' saga should be seen for what it is. A human issue turned into political nonsense, for all the reasons Susan lists, and more.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 26 March 2010 9:51:20 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
Benk, I think you might be commenting on a different article? I do not take issue with racism in the article. I simply point out that we had a white Australia policy back then as an historical fact and that most of the refugees in camps at the moment are not white. You can draw your own conclusions about whether that has any significance. On the subject of racism generally I'm always wary, politicians treat 'our own' just as badly when it suits them and when they can get away with it. As for the Christian churches helping refugees, I make the point very clearly in the article that the churches have been at the forefront of assisting refugees and that perhaps the Christian politicians could follow their lead. If it wasn't for many churches, as well as people without faith or other faiths, many people on TPVs who were dumped in the community without support under the last government would not have survived. I still regularly turn to churches to ask for help with refugees who are having problems and most have been amazing in their support. In some other areas I may not be so fast to praise the work of the churches. Susan
Posted by Susan M, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:27:27 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
Grim with his typical leftist deceit writes

'So far on this thread I have counted at least 3 atheists in favour of treating refugees compassionately, and 2 Christians in favour of turning their backs on their 'brothers'.'

What he means is that he has found 3 atheist happy to spend tax payers money to help these people even ij it means them drowning. He/she knows that Christians put their money where there mouth is personally rather than hiding behind ideology and expecting the taxpayer to fund their 'compassion'.
Posted by runner, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:38:43 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
Pelican, it is just not true that Australia allows 'illegitimate unverified asylum seekers into the country at the expense of genuine asylum seekers' That's just an untruthful statement. People go through an extensive process to have their 'legitimacy' proved and Scott Morrison admitted this week that 97% of the people on Christmas Island are being found to be refugees at the moment - that means they are fleeing from persecution. If you think Christian values are so flexible then I think we have a right to ask exactly what our Christian politicans mean when they say they are family loving Christians. They present themselves to us in this way and I can't see the evidence in their words and their actions. What kind of Christianity do they represent? You can't just distort religious values to suit your political opportunism. If they want to pin the tag of Christianity on themselves we should expect that they practice what they preach. And really to accuse lawyers of profiting is really unfair - lawyers who work in this area often do more pro bono work than they do paid work. Susan
Posted by Susan M, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:40:57 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
In his 2004 election campaign Liberal MP Don Randall claimed that Australia was "essentially a Christian nation, operating on Christian principles" and the electorate "want to know that they've got a Christian at the head of the Australian Government." I wonder what these principles are?
Posted by Meander, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:58:47 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
CJ,

The "motherhood" statement I was referring to was "but we need to reduce our skilled migration program and balance that reduction by investing in skills training for Australians"

A reduction in "hairdressers and cooks" is soon to be implemented, and will help.

It appeals to everyone, but as solution to the immediate it is completely useless (along with most of the greens suggestions)

And the rest of my post should have made that perfectly clear.

Under the non binding accord, Aus is required to give temporary residence to genuine refugees (as determined by itself)
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 26 March 2010 11:02:43 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
Susan
I am not twisting Christian values to suit, I am an atheist. I am arguing purely that you or I cannot use someones religiosity to presume a certain stance nor interpret their values to suit our own political agenda. Hypocrisy is a human trait it is not confined to the Church.

I put these sorts of coments in the same camp as those who would tar Athiests as lacking in morals just for believing there is no supreme being.

My use of the word 'allow' was to make the point that all applicants end up in the processing queue - their status yet to be determined; and how compassion may be manipulated to argue any aspect of a debate.

Much of the assistance given to refugees in the form of legal aid is not pro bono, fees are paid by government. Yes some groups do assist with legal costs but this is paid by via donations (and government funding). The Red Cross I believe is also contracted by Government to provide some forms of assistance to refugees. And yes there are some lawyers who work pro bono.

I have no issue with the well intentioned nature of your article only the manner in which you chose to convey your meaning.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 26 March 2010 11:08:12 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
Meander...the Christian principles you seek can be found in the 1997 and 2001 DFAT White Papers.

They formed the basis of Australia's Foreign Policy during the Howard era, and as far as I know are still in place under Rudd, unless Smith has put out a new White Paper to replace it.

You may, quite reasonably, reply that these are hardly 'Christian values', to which I would have no argument to counter you with, but this is what Howard's era was built on, quite openly and deliberately.

It marked a move away from Realism as an essential marker of our national security programme, based on the old concept of 'national interest', and a move into a form of Social Constructivism.

Howard was the first PM to openly mix domestic and external foreign policy objectives, making a 'domesternal' policy as the mainstay of his time.

Smith and Rudd have, to some extent, returned to a Realist path but the concept of 'Christian values' became interchangeable with 'Australian values' under Howard, and that has barely altered under Rudd.

Rudd also believes Australia is a Christian nation, as did Beasley... and most of the ALP.

It goes without saying that none of the Coalition would own up to any hint of non-belief in their heads.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 26 March 2010 12:12:09 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
Leigh, you said “Christianity had nothing to do with illegals entrants or politicians”. You may wish that were true, but it’s not. It has many things to say about both, as previous posts have shown.

Underpinning this article are some important issues. Susan asks what kind of Christianity these politicians “represent”. I might even be in agreement with Leigh when I say they don’t “represent” Christianity when they enter politics – they are there to represent their constituents and parties in the national interest. They take their own values and worldviews with them, including their religion. But their contract with the electorate is not to pursue these primarily, still less to impose a theocracy.

By becoming a politician they enter a secular game and agree to play by secular rules. That entails pragmatism and compromise and means they can’t always act entirely in accordance with their values and ideals. The key question is how much compromise they can tolerate before they are themselves compromised
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 26 March 2010 1:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“There is absolutely no evidence that anyone of importance or official status ever said anything remotely like that; perhaps one of the anti Labor hacks at the Australian might have imagined it!”

When will you be producing the evidence the UN did not say that, Peter King? If you are going to require evidence from other people, you need to be prepared to provide your own evidence for what you say.

And, the outdated 1951 Convention on refugees does NOT give the right to illegals arriving on smugglers’ boats to rock up, uninvited on the shores of any country. Australia, unlike other signatories to a convention which belonged to a different time, when the current open slather could not have been envisaged, takes UN-processed refugees from off-shore. People have to set foot on the land of the other signatories before they have a chance of being granted asylum.

No one, even bona fide refugees have the right to shop for a country.

It is true that Howard did not “solve the refugee problem”; he had not intention or doing so. Howard solved Australia’s border protection problem, and prevented illegal entry, actually stopping people smugglers in their tracks. No longer could smugglers convince paying customers that it was OK to go to Australia illegally. Never was the Howard Government in breach of a Labor-signed and outdated convention. Never did Australia lose credibility; indeed, it gained respect and envy from other countries who couldn’t manage to do the same thing.

Rudd has dismantled that, and we now have a open door policy; worse, Rudd’s policy actually encourages people smugglers and their illegal passengers.

Rudd is the one who lost credibility and integrity, globally and locally
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 26 March 2010 2:51:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard did NOT solve the border protection problem and Rudd didn't "dismantle" any policy except the one about temporary protection visas. Howard was about to abandon this policy himself because it was ineffective and against international standards. There was no international "envy" - just criticism.

Interesting to note that the Libs did not oppose this being scrapped in Parliament at the time and some even spoke in favour of it going.

As shown in all the UNHCR studies, the global rise and fall in refugee numbers coincided with periods of conflict or calm and these statistics correlate with our own.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/immigration/howards-boat-people-claim-rubbished/2005/07/01/1119724809508.html is just one example.

The recent rise corresponds to the Sri Lanka conflict and even Howard's "policy" could not have prevented this latest wave.

It seems that we are slipping back into the "hate" mode that many were sick of when they flushed Howard's team a couple of years ago.
Posted by rache, Friday, 26 March 2010 9:52:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be so sure Rache:

Firstly, your counter-claim article, aside from merely making a largely unsubstantiated statement and doing little to connect the statement it merely implies is connected (world trends as only factor Australian assylum seeker rise and drop), is from 2005- FIVE years prior to the article from only two days ago Leigh brought up showing the contradicting trends of the jump in Asylum seekers turning to Australia and drop in asylum seeker numbers worldwide.

Secondly, are you SURE it was 'everyone' getting sick of anti-refugee stances that ousted the Howard Government?
All political parties are a packaged deal- and the Liberals also had the Iraq War, Workchoices, the NT intervention scheme and various aspects of their performance and ideas they endorsed that *might* have also played a part.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:21:06 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
Susan here is the undoing of your credibilty.

You say the Refugee Council believes Australia should take 20,000 refugees annually.

I shout and clap and cheer in agreement, do you? ... Christ wouldn't ... but would you take the twenty thousandth and first refugee that illegally landed back to sea?

What do you propose for that person?
Posted by keith, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:24:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think King Hazza is right there.

Seems that most of our fellow citizens supported Howard until their backpockets were being hit via WorkChoices.

Everyone, as in the Howard battlers-from just above the dole to about $800k p.a., loved the wars, and hated the boaties, and fear dole bludgers, and like handouts for themselves... that's why Rudd is largely the same but has got into trouble trying to differentiate himself from a few aspects, under the nightly influence of Bonhoffer and Mackillop.

Where would this nation be without the Rudd hotline to 'upstairs'?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 26 March 2010 10:26:44 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
That may not be too far off Blue Cross- although it's really not possible to say for sure on either single issue (except workchoices), for as voters we simply weigh the Liberals package deal vs the Labor package deal vs the package deal of a minor party (+ chances that your vote to them might jeopardize our chance to ensure the worst of the biggest two is kept out made possible by voting one or the other directly).

And don't forget that no party in Australian history have actually won a genuine majority- simply a minority bigger than any other single minority supporting the other parties- often by a coalition.

Not that I follow that voting mindset myself- but I imagine most people do.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 27 March 2010 12:47:15 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
Speaking of twisting words, Ritchie10, no one suggested the innocent should be condemned.
"I never said innocent people are condemned what I said was if you break the law you are subject to the law."
In the example I gave, Jesus defended a woman found guilty of breaking the law of adultery.
Runner, it is interesting that not so long ago, someone who took a moral stance was assumed to be a Christian. Now apparently, if one takes a moral stand one is assumed to be a 'lefty'; even by avowed Christians.
As for tax dollars, I agree. Howard's Pacific solution was an incredible waste of tax dollars. That money could have been used on infrastructure to -initially- support refugees and long term benefit all Australians, instead of "propping up failing island economies".
An even better solution would be to encourage sponsorship programs; spend the tax dollars in rural communities to encourage new comers to settle outside the capital cities, and hopefully reduce these 'hotbeds of racial tension'.
You know, treat them like neighbours.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 27 March 2010 5:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I am suggesting to those Christian, family loving, neurotically boat obsessed politicians that they might want to take a few baby steps towards advocating for the world's refugees and the moderate increase suggested by the Refugee Council might be a good place for them to start. The politics that they indulge in makes it very hard to get past the current numbers we take. Great that you also support the increase and I hope you will be advocating strongly. Personally, I think it is disgusting that any human being in need is shut outside of the wealthiest countries around the world, I've said it many times. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said last year, ‘The overwhelming burden of displacement is borne by developing countries…Eighty percent of refugees are in the developing world. Generosity and wealth are not proportional to each other.' What I personally believe we should be doing and what the most resistant amongst us will accept are worlds apart. If the Government offers to increase the program by just one person I will take it.
Posted by Susan M, Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:26:44 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
Rache,

You must have slept through the Howard period. Howard did do the things I said he did, and Rudd ripped them apart. Only TPV's? Not so. Rudd cancelled the 'Pacific Solution', did special deals with queue-jumpers and now allows illegals carte blanche; he is even increasing accomodation on Christmas Island and thereby encouraging more illegals to come here.

The rise (there has been no fall since Rudd's election) does not show any correlation between the huge increase in illegals turning up here and any world situation, including Sri Lanka. That's just a political con job put about by Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O'Connor because his government has really stuffed up on border protection and hasn't got a clue how to fix the mess.

Keep on thinking that everyone else is wrong and you are right, Rache. The chooks will eventually come home to roost, and it seems that it is going to take a population and racial catastrophe for people like you to get the message.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:55:27 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
So Howard "stopped the boats"?
According to Alexander Downer on Radio National on November 9th 2009 the boats STILL CAME but the Navy just towed the boats back into Indonesian waters and left them there. "And this worked very effectively, but we did this without any publicity, we didn’t run around boasting that we were doing this because we knew the Indonesian accepted these people back through gritted teeth."

As for the TPVs,these were introduced in October 1999. There were 3722 irregular maritime arrivals that year. During the next two years there were 8459 irregular maritime arrivals, including 5520 arrivals in 2001 alone.

By the time TPVs were abolished , nearly 90 percent of people initially granted a TPV had been granted a Permanent Protection visa or another visa to remain in Australia.

More than 11,000 people were granted TPVs. Of these, 9841 had already been granted a Permanent Protection visa (9690) or another visa (151) as at 8 August 2008. Only 379 people, or about 3 per cent of those granted a TPV, had departed Australia.

Not exactly effective.

Another consequence was that they led to more women and children risking a sea voyage because the TPV conditions prevented the chance of family reunions.

Terms like "racial catastrophe" are just more of the same alarmist scaremongering. I suggest that there are more important issues to be concerned about.
Posted by rache, Saturday, 27 March 2010 7:20:14 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
Quite aside from the arguments around a good vs bad Christian; a religious as opposed to athiest or agnostic take on refugees, and all that in-between, the issue surely is the politicisation of the issue of asylum seekers (by boat, by air). Rudd in 2007 promised to "tow the boats back". His left-leaning, compassionate minister for immigration (Chris Evans) has no such stomach for such rot (and neither it seems does the Rudd Cabinet either).

The Coalition solution is no solution. Whether it's the boringly repetitive Scott Morrison or Michael Keenan, the Coalition has absolutely no solution.

This is not an exclusively Australian-centric problem; this is a global issue boys and girls. It's why a regional solution is what we need, and why attempts to bring regional partners into the tent is going to be one of the sure-fire ways of securing a reduction, though never a halt, to the refugee flow. Peace in our time in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and political stability in Iran and Iraq is a good start.

For what it's worth, an issue which involves a mere 2000-3000 people a year, and for which the government has allocated almost 14 000 places (under the refugee and humanitarian program) anyway, is not deserving of the crass politics we're witnessing. I fear what the actual election campaign will bring forth.
Posted by Chutzpah, Saturday, 27 March 2010 10:14:09 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
Dear Grim,
Jesus came to save not condemn. When we accept Gods grace we are no longer under the penalty of the law but under Christ. Set free "go and sin no more". I say again, break the law and you are subject to the law.
Posted by Richie 10, Sunday, 28 March 2010 10:16:18 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
Leigh you say 'The rise (there has been no fall since Rudd's election) does not show any correlation between the huge increase in illegals turning up here and any world situation'. So if most of the people arriving on boats are from Afghanistan and around the world applications from Afghans rose by 45%, how do you explain that we only received a rise of 29% in our applications when afghans are mostly the ones coming on our boats? I think we are below the world average in that case, wouldn't you agree? Only an extra 136 people applied from Sri Lanka in 2009 compared to 2008 - it was the Afghans applications that pushed the percentage up and they are biggest group of asylum applicants in the world now. The Taliban were removed from power in December 2001, millions of Afghans returned - any connection to the boats stopping then? The Taliban have re-emerged - any connection to the boats coming now? We do not have 'huge' numbers of anyone coming here - the 29% increase represents only a thousand or or so extra people....
Posted by Meander, Sunday, 28 March 2010 10:45:47 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
and Leigh I don't remember Howard's party complaining much when the failed Pacific solution and TPVs were abolished - everyone knew the policies stank and caused shocking damage to people. Rudd has been tougher with people smugglers and stepped up disruption activities in Indonesia and other countries
Posted by Meander, Sunday, 28 March 2010 11:05:16 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
What if it's simply a bad law, Richie10? should we still be stoning to death adulterous women? Burning witches?
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 28 March 2010 12:14:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susan M.

Have you taken lessons from Rudd?

You didn't answer my question.

I'll put it another way. Since there are 'officially' 16 million refugees and another 21 million internally displaced persons worldwide, according to a 2009 UNHCR estimate, do you think we should accept them all if they all turned up at Christmas Island seeking refuge?
Or at what point do you become unchristian and say no more ... enough?

A straightout simple numerical will suffice as an answer?

I sincerely think we should increase our intake annually but am realistic to realise we cannot take them all. So I'd put a cap probably higher than 20,000 but at a point experts would assure us the very nature of our society wouldn't change substantially. ie that we'd still be a country the could absorb refugees but wouldn't have our standard of living fall all too dramatically . After all, the things that makes us an attractive destination are our social codes and lifestyles. Features being our diversity, tolerance and slow acceptance of and adaption to change.

Your article, because I'd put a limit on numbers, suggests I'm according to your views, unchristian and uncaring about 'those pushed away from our shores'... which by necessity must occur at some point.

I'm in favour of debate, constructive debate, on this issue and abhor the name-calling and abusive tactics just as much as I abhor the scare-mongering.

I think we'd all be better off adopting our usual Australian ways. We could perhaps calmly confront the issue from a point of view of limits. ie Discussing at what point we can rationally and fairly say with a clear conscience ... enough!

Regards Keith

Oh and I do admire your passion.
Posted by keith, Sunday, 28 March 2010 3:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim... you are a silly aren't you?

"What if it's simply a bad law... should we still be stoning to death adulterous women? Burning witches?"

Of course we should. The Good Book was writ once, is true, unchanging, and must be obeyed at all times, without fear or favour, with no accounting for changed times and conditions.

It is The Truth, and cannot be deviated from, just ask Graham Y and all the others here.

There can be no 'bad law' when it is WRIT.

The Good News is just that, good news.

And those who cause men to sin, must be stoned to death, particularly when they are women.

This is the lurv of God, brought to you via His only Son being nailed to a bloody cross at the Pagan festival of Easter....lucky how things work out sometimes isn't it?

Do get with it Grim.... or you'll never understand the lurv of God.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Sunday, 28 March 2010 9:00:21 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
Australia's refugees compared to the rest of the world between 1990 and 2008 -

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/04/17/why-andrew-bolt-should-be-sodomised-with-a-calculator-–-part-142/

Looks pretty similar, despite all the spin.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 29 March 2010 12:32:30 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
Figures for boat arrivals since the implementation of the pacific solution:

2002–03
0 Boats
0 People

2003–04
3 Boats
82 People

2004–05
0 Boats
0 People

2005–06
8 Boats
61 People

2006–07
4 Boats
133 People

2007–08
3 Boats
25 People

2008–09
23 Boats
1033 People

2009–10 (to 10 March 2010) 7 months
64 Boats (projected 110)
3011 People (projected 5162)

The way it is going the financial year 2010 /11 will have the highest number of illegal boat entries ever. A new Rudd record.

At what point will Rudd 'fess up and admit that this is not the "small" increase due to push factors that he said we might see?

The "wasteful" Pacific solution is looking far far cheaper than the flood we have now.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 29 March 2010 9:05:01 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
From BBC news.
More than a third of species assessed in a major international biodiversity study are threatened with extinction, scientists have warned.
These included 21% of all known mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates.
At what point will society truly respond to this growing crisis?
Professor Jonathan Baillie,
Zoological Society of London.
This is caused entirely by the increase in Human Population!
50% of these were in AUSTRALIA.
Posted by Sherkahn, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:27:34 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
TBC, Grim

Christian values are extremely malleable - for others to criticise this useful 'quality' are wrong and maybe avenged by deletion and suspension by devout Christians working in God's name. Similar logic, therefore, is applied to asylum seekers, who may or may not be Christian, or even worse Muslim, or worst of all - non-religious.

I am indeed full of the love and tolerance of the Christian, such as when my post on the Obama thread was deleted by GY for suggesting that "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" apparently this is 'flaming' if uttered by a self-confessed atheist.

According to our Christian moderator, non-religious people are basically Stalinists and to blame for every communist atrocity ever committed, despite the fact that non-religious people have existed since the beginning of homo sapiens either 6000 or 100's of thousands of years ago depending upon your 'malleability'.

Wonder how long this post will last - it is on topic, it is an honest reflection on the behaviour of SOME Christians, but it is a bit critical of double standards applied to Christian and non-religious posters.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:49:31 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
Dear Susan, following is a copy of an email sent to Migration Minister.
Dear Senator, how can Tamils excuse themselves travelling all the way to Australia when their HOMELAND is just 'across the water' in India?
Tamil Nadu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.
Is their Homeland rating them as terrorists?
Are you countermanding the Hindu's of India with you religious views?
Posted by Sherkahn, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:34:12 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
Will you all stop arguing with each other and keep your comments on the article, or exchange emails to carry on with each other.
Posted by Sherkahn, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:46:51 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
The most desperate and vulnerable refugees in the world are single women and children who live in abject poverty in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They 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. However, as a group they are not represented among the clients of people smugglers as they are obviously unable to pay the many thousands of dollars required.

The greater number of asylum seekers using people smugglers coming from Afghanistan are able bodied men having access to substantial financial resources. They are able to pay $10,000 to $15,000 per person to people smugglers, even though Afghanistan has a per capita income of about $800 per year or around $2 per day.

Refugee advocates frequently cite racism or xenophobia or anti-muslim sentiment as the reasons for so many Australians being strongly against “queue jumping”, but could it not be that many Australians have great sympathy for the women and children refugees in squalid camps who cannot afford to pay people smugglers, and could it not be that it offends the sense of fairness of many Australians that able bodied men coming from countries where the per capita income is $2 - $3 per day can pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers and thus deprive desperate and vulnerable women and children places in Australia’s refugee resettlement program.
Posted by franklin, Monday, 29 March 2010 4:31:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"2007–08
3 Boats
25 People

2008–09
23 Boats
1033 People

2009–10 (to 10 March 2010) 7 months
64 Boats (projected 110)
3011 People (projected 5162"

In late 2007 the Taliban starts a resurgence in Afghanistan. In late 2008 through to May 2009 the Sri Lankan Civil war enters its final stages and comes to an end. Three hundred thousand people are held in refugee camps where there are reports of rapes, murders and disappearances.

What would a rational human being do? They would try to flee. Why couldn't the Sri Lankan Tamils just go to Tamil Nadu? Fair question. But if they did they would just wind up in another refugee camp. And if you think Australia is over-crowded take a trip to Chennai.

Why is it mostly men who come as boat people? Well in Asian culture its usually the men who go on ahead and fix things up before the women and children join them. Sometimes its the young men who do this for the family.

Why do they have 15K etc? The money that they spend on people smugglers represents their family's entire savings and assets. How much money would you have if you sold your house and possessions etc?

Let them in under a balanced and fair migration scheme. We can take a certain amount, and we need to balance competing considerations like people in the camps etc. Lets do that. But lets do it without the cheap point-scoring
Posted by David Jennings, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
franklin: << ...could it not be that many Australians have great sympathy for the women and children refugees in squalid camps who cannot afford to pay people smugglers, and could it not be that it offends the sense of fairness of many Australians... >>

Indeed it could, and undoubtedly is the case for some, particularly if they're exposed to that kind of disingenuous spin. However, I've noticed that when this argument is deployed, it's invariably trotted out by people with far more insidious motives.

Well said David Jennings (as usual).
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:19:13 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
Why can't we all just hold hands,
join together and sing Kumbaya?
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:37:49 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
Pakistan - 1.7 million registered Afghan refugees
Australia 2009 - 940 asylum applications from Afghan people
Who is the biggest whinger?
Posted by Meander, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:45:02 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
Oh, you speaker with a forked tongue Meander... you forget that Australia is a Christian nation, and there is no room in the inn for 'them'.

Haven't you seen those shock-jock inspired bumper stickers 'F@#^ off, we're full'?

Then there's the 'F*#@ off, we're all Christians' one coming out shortly from one of the Christian lobby groups.

And the calls for a national test for citizenship based entirely on the New Testament quotes, emanating from the PMs office.

Seems Rudd's office might be trying to out-Abbott Abbott in a pre-emptive strike.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 29 March 2010 9:49:53 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
Please note meander, Afghanistan is next door to Pakistan and have the same religion.
Posted by Sherkahn, Monday, 29 March 2010 9:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susan Metcalfe states that most asylum seekers arriving by boat will turn out to be refugees. That statement requires clarification.

The classification of an asylum seeker as a refugee is a greatly subjective process. In the end it often comes down to whether or not an asylum seeker's claims are to be believed, and in most cases without any real evidence.

The problem in assessing claims of asylum seekers is that it cannot be determined without doubt what has actually happened to them. It is standard practice for asylum seekers to destroy identity and travel documents prior to arrival and then claim refugee status, although such documents had been used for travel through other countries up until arrival at Australian immigration points. All enquiries after arrival of an asylum seeker involve assessments as to whether or not the story of persecution they present is believable. The immigration department can make inquiries offshore to test the story, but this is time consuming and expensive and will not always resolve the matter.

While the law says the onus of proof in a refugee status application is on the applicant, this has in practice evolved into applicants challenging the Australian Government to disprove their stories. As very few stories from remote war zones can be conclusively and individually disproved the storytellers get the benefit of the doubt and so gain refugee status. The net result is that for many years every person getting on a slow boat to Australia with an intention to claim asylum has a prepared story that is an effective distillation of the stories of previously successful applicants. The story has to be moving enough to engage the 1951 Convention protection obligations, but at the same time vague enough to be uncheckable. The further an asylum seeker is from their home country, the more difficult it is to confirm the facts of their story.

The entire refugee assessment process on Christmas Island is flawed by error and guesswork, which greatly works to the advantage of the refugee claimant, and results in abnormally high acceptance rates.
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:43:16 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

You cannot presume that the absence of papers is evidence of intent to deceive. What you say may well be true of some refugees, but surely not of all. Those I have spoken to have sometimes never had official papers, lost them in conflict, had them confiscated by authorities or stolen by rivals.

And of course it’s true that asylum seekers’ claims often can’t be verified – what do you expect? The situations that they are fleeing are hardly likely to produce hard evidence or independent third-party corroboration. Immigration officials are fairly adept at sorting the evidence they get, but it’s hardly surprising the evidence is not always conclusive.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.

Should we presume that every arrival without papers is intending to deceive, and every claimant without corroborating evidence should be returned to their country of origin? If so, we will cause many deaths and ,much persecution in order to reduce the administrative burden of processing a few hundred desperate individuals.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 3:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Rhian.

Very few of the human rights abusing states are likely to admit their culpability given that there are now some enforceable international law rules on war crimes etc.

On balance it make sense to err on the side of humanity.
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 4:27:45 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
The existence of the refugee queue is most problematic for refugee advocates such as Sue Metcalfe. Refugee advocates see themselves as kind, compassionate and caring people, whose compassion is shown in their fanatical support of the asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island, who they unfailingly and unquestioningly view as desperate refugees bravely fleeing persecution and torture. Refugee advocates are very quick to characterize others who do not share their views as unchristian, mean spirited, lacking compassion, xenophobic, racist and other such denigrating labels.

The great majority of asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island are able bodied men coming from Afghanistan. They are able to pay people smugglers many thousands of dollars (newspaper articles cite a cost of $15,000 per person) although the per capita income of Afghanistan is around $800 per year (about $2 per day). In contrast, the most desperate refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid UNHCR refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in abject poverty and 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. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers. Which of these two groups would you expect it would be logical for refugee advocates to extend their compassion to ?

Refugee advocates are compelled deny the existence of a refugee queue (“imaginary queue”) as that would imply being misguided in their compassion, that is their compassion does not go to those most in need such as destitute and desperate women and children in UNHCR refugee camps, but instead goes to able bodied men having substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers. Refugee advocates just cannot admit to themselves or to others that for every asylum seeker arrival via people smugglers there is one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for refugees in much more desperate circumstance waiting in the refugee queue.

Rhian:

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

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 6:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Franklin, refugees are not standing in a supermarket queue and if you really engaged with refugees you would understand their reality.

In my article I have called into question the integrity of all our politicians who want to present themselves as christians and family loving when their words and actions reveal something else -if you want to defend them good for you, you obviously love them more than me, but I don't believe they are being genuine with themselves of anyone else if they think that being tough on refugees is in tune with Christian values. I think they are talking rubbish.

As for your line about the people in the camps, well why don't you start advocating for more people to be taken from the camps. The many people I know who are supporting many refugees don't discriminate between people on the basis of whether they arrived on boats, plane, or whether they are still in camps, or whether they were delivered by the stork. As far as you disclose, and please tell me otherwise, you are not advocating for or supporting any of these people. You are running a political line. You want to create divisions.

Male refugees are not monsters, many are extremely vulnerable, I know numerous who have been tortured and continue to suffer horrendous consequences - please do not scapegoat men. Of course I agree that women and children constitute most of the world's most vulnerable refugees but many of these men are supporting them. But again you want to be divisive - you are telling people that compassion is only allowed for some people but not others. If you think that African refugees in camps are the most vulnerable then support them, but you will need to convince the Opposition - Kevin Andrews told us at the last election campaign that the most needy from Africa were not actually the most important anymore because they weren't integrating.
Posted by Susan M, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:00:51 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
cont'd Franklin - Have you entertained the thought that perhaps the problem is not them, that perhaps it is us and our policies along with the rest of the world?

And really, you think you are the victim instead of the refugees because refugee advocates are pinning labels on you. This seems to be at the core of the anti refugee sentiment, people who believe their victimhood is actually greater than refugees.
Posted by Susan M, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:02:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW, to say that Afghanistan and Pakistan have the same religion is to oversimplify.

Many Afghan refugees are from the Hazara ethnic group. They are Shia Muslims, whereas other Afghans are Sunni Muslims. Hazara Shiites suffer from the prejudice and worse of some Sunnis, especially the Taliban who persecute and murder them as heretics.

In Pakistan, there are often outbreaks of lethal violence between Sunni and Shia hotheads, as for example the recent bombing and riots in Karachi.
Posted by tonyf, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 10:48:32 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
Franklin,

The “Age” article has several hallmarks of shonky shock journalism – unattributed quotes, numbers expressed in ways that are vague but intended to give the impression that the problem is extensive, incorrect and loaded phrases such as “illegal illegal Pakistani Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) holders” (if they held visas, they were not illegal!).

It’s also almost 8 years old – things have change since then.

But even if the information were both accurate and current, it does not really answer my question. Granted that some people lie to gain admission, does that mean we should turn back all applicants, knowing that the human cost of doing so would be far greater than the cost of letting a few people slip through who shouldn’t?
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:40:45 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
Susan,

quite obviously you are refusing to answer my question!

When you do you will cease your insessant denigrating of people who have the same compassion as you and I. Their only difference is they want Australia to accept less refugees in a more controlled manner than you and I. (Although I like you also think things shouldn't be allowed to get to the stage of open borders ... as we are seeing currently.)

To win them over ... well you won't, you will only get their backs up, with your continual carping ascusations and criticism.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 4:20:49 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
Much of the left are very compassionate as long as it involves your money.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 5:23:53 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 following newspaper article describes the story of Habiba Hosseini. Her parents fled the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with their children in the early 1980s for Iran and lived an uneasy existence as refugees in a hostile host country. Habiba fled a forced and abusive marriage in Iran with her teenage daughters to her brother's home in Afghanistan, only to be told her daughters must return to their father. In 2006 she and her two daughters arrived penniless and terrified in Pakistan and have since been waiting in an (“imaginary”) refugee queue for an offshore humanitarian visa to Australia. The UNHCR classified Habiba and her daughters as women at risk. Habiba and her daughters are among a long (“imaginary”) queue of refugees living in hiding and penury in Pakistan as they go through the long process required by countries such as Australia, Canada and the US for asylum-seeker visas.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25451198-25837,00.html

The following online article describes the story of Norooz Ali Iqbal. Norooz's family owned a gold shop in Kabul. He felt that life in Afghanistan was hard, the family was threatened by unrest and ethnic tensions and the growing strength of the Taliban. He and his wife Adila had given up on their homeland and dreamed of living in Australia. He decided to leave Afghanistan and was able to apply for a passport, buy a plane ticket and obtain a visa at the Indonesian Embassy in Kabul. He did not need to wait in the long (“imaginary”) queue of refugees for an offshore humanitarian visa to Australia. Most unfortunately his journey to Australia ended in tragedy.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2474952.htm

There are limited numbers of refugee resettlement places made available by Australia each year. Some asylum seekers like Norooz can arrive via people smugglers and in that way claim a resettlement place, most asylum seekers like Habiba cannot. The question for refugee advocates such as Susan Metcalf is who should take precedence for the scare resettlement places, those most in need of resettlement in the (“imaginary”) queue of refugees, or those that have substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers.
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 6:49:56 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
Keith, I am sorry you feel ignored but I don't ever respond well to commands, or personal attacks, and I have very limited time to engage on here. I have answered your question, you just don't like my answer and you seem to prefer an argument. I don't do compassion by numbers and we probably just see life very differently. I am happy to agree to disagree with you. My idea of Christianity is obviously very different to yours and I am sure you can grapple with your own Christian beliefs. My article calls to account our politicians and the media for what they say and do. all the best Susan
Posted by Susan M, Thursday, 1 April 2010 10:12:58 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
This news story from the ABC today seems relevant:

<< Church slams Abbott's 'chilling' asylum message

The Uniting Church's president has described Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's language on asylum seekers as "extreme".

Mr Abbott said this week that a Coalition government would do "whatever it takes" to stop unauthorised boat arrivals in Australian waters.

Reverend Alistair Macrae says his Easter message is for Australians to be more welcoming to asylum seekers.

He says there has been a mean-spirited approach to the issue.

"Mr Abbott's phrase 'whatever it takes' is slightly chilling to me," he said.

"It just seems quite extreme language for an issue which on the world scale is pretty small.

"We're talking as if we're being inundated by asylum seekers at the moment, but relative to other countries the numbers that come here [are] really a mere trickle." >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/01/2862185.htm?section=justin

It seems to me that Christianity accommodates a wide range of attitudes to asylum seekers, from the compassion of Rev Macrae to the "mean-spiritedness" displayed by the Mad Monk.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 1 April 2010 10:19:49 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
CJM

Although I agree with your sentiments, I do wonder why we bother to take any notice of these people, "Reverend Alistair Macrae says his Easter message is for Australians to be more welcoming to asylum seekers".

Now, why do we give this sort of 'special pleading' any oxygen?

Why is the Revs message restricted to being an 'Easter' message?

Why is it not just a 'Thursday' message, or a Tuesday one, or a Saturday one?

By allowing the Revs 'Easter message' some credibility, we encourage them with their 'special status' claims.

I suspect a range of people, those with and those without any burden of 'faith' think in 'for' and 'against' tones on this matter.

Besides, Abbott and many others are as 'Christian' as this Rev, so clearly just identifying as 'a Christian' produces no guarantee of any particular model of thinking.

So, CJM, I am sorry to say, that although the Rev may well be well intentioned, his words are no more 'special' than yours, or mine, or Susan Ms are.

The very idea that there is 'a Christian view' on this or any matter, is patently false.

Like so much else to do with 'religion'.

A mate (as Rudd would say) has just sent me a pdf of his local paper which has just produced a hint of what 'real Christians' think.

It is April Fool today, so I am not sure if it is a bad hoax or not.

The ever loving geeks at Toowoomba's Easterfest have decided to import a Bren gun and a Matilda tank to the event to show the clear link between war, the ever loving Jesus and the Easter message.

'Heavens above'... I was heard to exclaim on reading this tripe.

But this is par-for-the-course, isn't it?

The 'blood sacrifice of Jesus', ANZAC Day, Gallipoli, the birth of a nation, war, Easterfest, and the caring hands of Rudd, Abbott, and the Rev above.

What pitiful piffle it all is.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 1 April 2010 10:43:14 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
Susan

I don't feel ignored, only let down.

I liked the answer you gave to my question my problem with your answer was that it never adressed in specifics the specific question I raised. And no I don't want an argument, I want a clarification of you position.

I'm disappointed you cannot confront the lack of credibilty you engender when you have issue with others who advocate low numbers yet you don't criticis the ROCA ,for advocating a limit of 20,000. Both enunciated a limit. Effectively they have a similar solution only difference is lower or larger numbers.
Or is it that you want an unrestricted number of asylum seekers to be allowed to settle in Australia annually?

I hope you were not suggesting I was indulging in 'commands, or personal attacks'.

And with due respect I do hope we see life differently ... it would be really odd if we didn't.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 1 April 2010 10:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I think you are mixing up levels of debate. RCOA is advocating for an increase in the numbers of people we take and they are not calling for boats to be pushed back at sea, they are not saying one human being is more valuable than another. In australia we currently have a quota system and I imagine RCOA's advocacy for that number is in terms of what might be realistically possible, having done their homework, given the political climate, etc. It will be tough to get any increase through at the moment. We haven't always had a quota system and in my article I mention that at one stage we couldn't get enough refugees for our own needs but at the moment this is the reality. There is a broader philosophical position that I may take but there is also the real politic of what it is possible to achieve in actual changes to policy. As I have said I will take any increase that is offered and the RCOA's recommended increase would be a good place to start for all these people who say they are so deeply concerned about the people in the camps. But unfortunately they are not often the ones helping these people.

I hope that is enough of an answer for you but to be fair, my article is not about the quota system.

Peter van onselen's article in today's Australian is in a similar vein http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/whos-afraid-of-4500-boatpeople/story-e6frg6zo-1225849056560 and it's worth reading Chris Evans speech to the Sydney Institute http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/speeches/2010/ce100324.htm

In the past thirty years I think we have only had about 20,000 or so people arriving by boat so it's hard to see that anything other than politics is driving the people wanting to have another debate on the subject right now, with an election on the way. I would much rather the national focus from both parties be on other issues that will effect the real lives of people, like disability. Susan
Posted by Susan M, Saturday, 3 April 2010 11:14:20 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
The West Australian reports that by 2020, 48% of Western Australians will be foreign born with many of them coming from Africa and the middle east.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7016618/half-foreign-born-by-2020/
Is it too much to hope that this ugly, racist, white society will become a little more like Somalia and a lot more like Pakistan?
Only then will be truly multicultural and diverse.
Here's hoping.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:14:57 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
Franklin, if there was a queue then people would wait in line. But the queue for most people goes nowhere - the front of the queue doesn't exist. So what would you do - sit and die, or beg and borrow to get enough money to get your children out in any way possible? I can't imagine most Aussies just waiting to die. Life is messy and some are luckier than others. We live in a country where money will buy you an easier life - maybe you believe we should take away much more from the rich in Australia, give them less access to hospitals? There are just as many tragic stories of people who have come on boats - single mothers with babies, old women, poor women whose distant relatives have borrowed the money to help them escape - widows whose children would have been taken by males if they had stayed. These people are human too and punishing them is not an answer, except for winning a few votes.
Posted by Meander, Sunday, 4 April 2010 10:29:44 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
Proxy...have you ever been to WA?

It's full of whingeing Poms, being the closest point to the UK, and the cheapest place to get to.

So, as far as I can see it has been full of foreigners ever since white men landed there.

As for 'planning', I see Rudd has hastily pretended to create a population policy by appointing the very Roman Catholic Tony Burke as the 'population' minister.

What a larf... putting a no-condoms man in charge of population control... now that sounds like Rudd is SERIOUS, doesn't it?

We'll all be rooned.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Sunday, 4 April 2010 12:57:57 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
The article in the West Australian actually states:

>>> "Research by prominent economic consultancy ACIL Tasman shows that WA will have 48 per cent foreign-born residents by 2020, a third of those from non-Anglo backgrounds."

But tragically, even with smarter and more industrious people moving there WA will still be a hole
Posted by David Jennings, Monday, 5 April 2010 2:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott squirmed his way through questions on his christianity and asylum seekers on Q and A last night, with a loaded Liberal audience. They started clapping at the sound of his voice. Jesus wouldn't have an open door for anyone who wanted to come to Australia says Abbott. But that's not the question. Jesus didn't turn away the poor and suffering, the reference Abbott was using was about merchants in a temple. Poor Jesus, he is getting spun so fiercely by people who claim to support him. Interesting that Abbott toned down his rhetoric dramatically for this audience. Would it be unchristian of me to wish that there be reincarnation so that everyone who turns people away will have a chance to be the turned away in a lifetime coming to them soon...
Posted by Meander, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:01:51 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
they should give up their religious beliefs if they want to be politicians. Wanting to push away the needy is not what they taught me at Sunday school. confessionals must be very full of pollies.
do people just live on these forums to make nasty comments about people on boats... how weird and sad some people's lives are.
Posted by fernando, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:48:45 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
I'm actually shocked to think that Christian and principles can be used in the same sentence. It seems the least likely to live up to a Christian principle is a Christian!

Is Senator Fielding getting his Chritianity confused? http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/send_asylum_seekers_to_the_back_of_the_queue_fielding/

Wasn't Jesus and his family refugees in Egypt fleeing Herod? Would Senator Fielding have put Jesus and his family at the back of the queue? Would baby Jesus have survived being returned? Is this Christian?

Matthew 2:13-23 Jesus the Refugee-http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+2%3A13-23&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=47&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=40&Submit.y=11

Senator, would you have sent Jesus and his family back to a refugee camp?

Is exaggerating, "the tidal wave", a Christian trait? Did you actually see the vision of the December 26, 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia? Now that was a tidal wave!

"Though shalt not bear false witness"- Oops is exaggerating a fib? http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Exodus+20%3A16&version1=47

Is sending a refugee to the back of the queue Christian?

"Do unto others" Matthew 7:12-http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+7%3A12&version1=47

Which refugee camp would you like to be returned to Senator?

Are you being merciful? Matthew 5:7-http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5%3A7&version1=47

It's good to see that Mikk also can quote from the book that undermines Christians the most - their Bible! Do Christians really know their Bibles?

Well done Mikk...

...Anyone can call themselves Christian...but it is your actions that show what is truly in your heart!

Luke 13:26-27 Then you will say, ‘But we ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ And he will reply, ‘I tell you, I don’t know you or where you come from. Get away from me, all you who do evil.’

And Leigh quoted Good old Little Johnny Howard "Australians are the ones who should be deciding who comes here and how."

Did the aborigine (the original Australians) decide who and how people could come here. NO! WE were "boat people" and we stole their land!

As usual the white Australian hypocrisy continues.
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 1:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

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