SM: Is James simply parroting an incorrect line spouted by activists?

Yep, All activists do that with everything they're against. They make what they would like to be in various Conventions & Laws, etc, then espouse that to be the case. They twist the truth, much like all Politicians, to convince people of their aim. When found out, they still claim to hold the high moral ground, So that makes them right anyway. either that or they were misunderstood.

JKJ, a question. Do you believe that anyone coming to Australia by any means & claiming Asylum should be granted Asylum regardless? If no, could you tell, us. in what circumstances would you see a person rejected?

"Do you believe that anyone coming to Australia by any means & claiming Asylum should be granted Asylum regardless? If no, could you tell, us. in what circumstances would you see a person rejected?"

Jayb, are you asking my personal opinion, or my opinion of what the current law is?

As to current, the situation is that anyone who can get into the migration zone (mainland Australia for all intents and purposes), by any means - legal or illegal can claim, and if the application is granted, they will get a permanent visa. But it won't be "regardless". They will have to satosfiy both your objections:
1. case not meritorious (fisherman from grass hut in search of better life) i.e. not a refugee, and
2. excluded for war crimes etc. (refugee but excluded.)

As for my personal opinion, it depends what the policy settings are.

If Australia is on the Convention, I think it should withdraw. I think it's a huge and abusive waste for tokenistic reasons and ulterior purposes, like trying to give credibility to the UN. Withdrawing from the Convention would *in no way* reduce Australia's ability to accept refugees. It would enable governments to control the numbers and characteristics and conditions of who is accepted, just as they do for the non-refugee and onshore migration caseloads, which is what both parties have been trying to do by devious means, for example
a) signing onto the Convention, and then
b) writing legislation to try to exempt officials from complying with the law.

It would remove the need to accept boat people which is what both parties have been trying to achieve by all their exorbitant shenanigans with Manus, Christmas Is., and so on.

If we assume that, as at present, the costs can be externalized onto the rest of the community, who are forced to pay for the processing, accommodation, legals, social security, etc. etc. etc, then I think it's bad.

I think this policy area is the "unstoppable force meeting the immoveable object". People will never stop coming, and trying to escape sh!t countries, which are many, and having heard hundreds of cases, I can't say I blame them even if they don't satisfy the formal definition of refugee. I have no time for those who say just sink the boats or send people back to be beheaded. That is bullsh!t.

I would like to see a system where Australians can sponsor whoever they want, subject to character and security checks, but must indemnify the rest of the community against the costs and liabilities, including for sickness and crimes.

There would be nothing stopping groups like the RefugeeCouncil setting up funds for people to subscribe so much per month, which would all add up to a lot, if the w@ankers would only put their money where their mouth is. I would willingly sponsore people but of course government makes everyhting illegal, including employing them, etc.

The problem at the moment is you've got the hypocrites of the green left brigade, and the James O'Neills of the world making up non-existent "obligations" based on laws (and when caught out, claiming it's all just a matter of opinion) - and then forcing everyone else to pay for an insanely expensive dysfunctional system, so they can get their cheap thrills crawling up the arse of the United Nations! - real left wing stuff.

Came across an old email I got about July last year. Thinking about the riots on Naru

"Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. As you may have heard the camp we have been constructing over the past 8 months has been burned to the ground. The riot and subsequent fire occurred on the evening of Friday the 19th since then we have constructed a temporary camp (tent city) for the detainees that are not banged up in the Nauru jail. The accommodation that was burned was of a very high standard and the dining facilities were second to none. These bastards were being fed better than us worker bees and living
accommodation better than the locals

Before I came here I was somewhat sympathetic toward refugees believing some were genuine. After the events of the 19th I am of the opinion that the group of male refugees here on Nauru are nothing more than violent arrogant criminals. The Iranians are no better than the Tamals or any other of the ethnic groups that we have here they are all the same. These people are the scum of the earth and should under no circumstance be permitted to live in Australia.

I have attached a before and after snaps of the accommodation buildings only, the rest of the damage is out of the shot."

JKJ: There would be nothing stopping groups like the Refugee Council setting up funds for people to subscribe so much per month, which would all add up to a lot, if the w@ankers would only put their money where their mouth is

But they won't there-in lies your problem. Most Australians don't want them here & of the one's that do very few have the money to cough up, being Greenie Ferals & all.

Settle down JKJ you'll bust a pooffulle Valve.

"But they won't there-in lies your problem. Most Australians don't want them here & of the one's that do very few have the money to cough up, being Greenie Ferals & all."

Well you've asked me my opintion, and I'm telling you. IF people were willing to sponsor them, I think they should be able to, and if not, not. It's not my problem. Mine is a good and fair solution. The problem is that the left wing, as usual, are full of bullsh!t as James O'Neill has just demonstrated. He doesn't care what the truth is. When caught out blatantly lying, he has the effrontery to claim everything's just a matter of opinion - i.e. there's no such thing as truth, or rather left wing opinion and truth are the same thing, even if it's factually, logically and ethically false.

But it cuts both ways. Just because people burn down tents when the government has detained them indefinitely without processing their claims on an island of birdsh!t in the middle of nowhere, deliberately to try to evade their obligations under the Convention, doesn't mean those people don't have well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason. It's completely illogical. Just because you don't want them to be here, doesn't mean they're not refugees. You're just doing what the left-wing bullsh!t-artists are doing - deciding what you want the end result to be, and then knowingly or illogically claiming that false things are true.

@JKJ I have tried to maintain a civilised dialogue about a fundamental issue. It is a great pity that you have descended to personal abuse based on your views about my alleged political beliefs. I have at all times tried to discuss the issues in terms of international law, and in particular Australia's responsibilities therein. I have maintained that Australia is in breach of its obligations under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol to the Convention, both ratified by Australia and therefore part of our domestic law. If that basic concept cannot be grasped by you and your fellow travellers then it is difficult to reach any common ground.

There have been a number of cases demonstrating that Australia's treatment of refugees breaches the Convention and Protocol. Bakhtiyari v Australia Case 1069/2002 and A v Australia Case 560/1993 are but two illustrations. The latter case in particular also dealt with Australia's breaches of Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, another Convention we have ratified.

It may suit your prejudices to label views you do not agree with as "left wing bulls..t" etc. I prefer to rely on the law, which the last time I looked applied to people of all political persuasions.

You might also like to consider Doc ExCom No 8 of 1977 which deals with procedures for determining refugee status. Again it is manifestly obvious that Australia is in breach of its commitments.

It is not my job to teach you the fundamentals of international law. There are plenty of books on the topic if you really want to expand your knowledge. Given your resort to personal abuse however, I suspect that knowledge, facts, the law and other inconveniences do not feature prominently in your approach.