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 > Nauru solution a dodgy deal > Comments

Nauru solution a dodgy deal : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 19/7/2010

Any notion of returning to our past treatment of refugees in Nauru must be taken off the table by both major parties in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All
shame that this is a forum for lots of anonymous bullies with a stripe of yellow cowardice. What is revealed here is that they get upset and abusive when others have opinions they don't agree with. Black is white they say, if you don't have my uninformed view you are an idiot they say. Makes debate impossible. bullying should come with the price of having you name disclosed for everyone to see.
Posted by King Kong, Sunday, 25 July 2010 3:48:06 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
King Kong,

Four posts ago you said...

People on here don't know what they are talking about and they are just making up lies, it is very nasty and I will not be back.

I would just like it if people on here had enough integrity to follow through with what they say they will do.
Posted by ozzie, Sunday, 25 July 2010 9:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susan, thankyou for your response of 23 July.

<< …the Pacific Solution was designed to punish those people … >>

This is a really unfortunate interpretation. It indicates to me that you, and indeed many others, are far too willing to think the worst and then hold on to that position as gospel unless it can be categorically proven to be false.

The fact is that Howard had a very difficult problem to deal with, which necessitated tough and somewhat unpalatable action. It was utterly obvious that onshore asylum seeking had to be made very much harder at about the time of the Tampa incident when Howard acted (August 2001), or else the numbers of boats would have blown right out.

Howard certainly did not set out to punish asylum seekers.

<< I don't believe it had the deterrent effect you suggest. I do believe that the change in circumstances in Afghanistan in particular was significant, the rejection of cases, the sinking of the SIEVX, and other factors. >>

Who knows what other factors were really at play, but one thing is very clear – the boats would have kept coming if tough action hadn’t been taken to stop them, all else being equal.

<< I believe that the Howard government was spooked by the Pauline Hanson factor in an election year, it was a frightened reaction. >>

I think that this is just silly. If there is any criticism I have for Howard over this issue, it is that he didn’t act sooner, and waited until the situation was in quite urgent need of attention. He could and should have tightened up border security early on in his term, and he had been in government for about five years before 2001.

But I reckon if Beazley and Labor had been in power in 01, much weaker action would have been taken and the whole issue would have become much bigger, with many more desperate people being caught up in it.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 7:55:32 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
I was not a great supporter of Howard, but his asylum seeker / border protection policies were pretty good, all told, when you look at all the other possible scenarios.

<< Having been so deeply involved in the Pacific Solution I saw a lot of damage caused to people and it is simply not the way we should be treating anyone. >>

Susan, I acknowledge the ‘damage’ that some people suffered. But again if you compare this to all other possible scenarios, it looks very minor.

I could go on at length, responding to just about every statement that you’ve made. But I don’t think it is necessary. The point is that I think you are quite incorrect in your overall interpretation of Howard’s policies and motivations.

As admirable as your humanitarian concerns are and your desire to have onshore asylum seekers treated in the best possible manner, there are other major concerns that need to be balanced with this. Again, I think Howard did this admirably….and Rudd just completely stuffed it up.

So, as we go on with the federal election campaigns, with Gillard and Abbott battling to be tougher than each other on border protection, we are still hearing absolutely nothing about offsetting onshore asylum seeking with a boost in our refugee intake or international aid.

Now, if there was just one refugee advocate with a reasonably high profile out there that got up and suggested something like this, I’m sure the media would jump on it and there’d be some hard questions asked of our prime ministerial candidates. But there is nothing.

So I’ve got to wonder; just where are all those people who are up in arms about tougher action on onshore asylum seekers really at?

It seems that they really aren’t very interested at all in Australia improving its bit in helping the world’s neediest people and are just totally hung up on the very narrow focus on those arriving on rickety boats.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 7:59:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All

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