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 > Why we broke the law > Comments

Why we broke the law : Comments

By Laura Vertigan, published 17/4/2014

I was one of those weirdo Christians who got arrested in Julie Bishop's office yesterday.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
I am more and more convinced that many of the open borders advocates are on autopilot.

Get this, from Bruce Haigh [the opposition to Laura is apparently] "being foul mouthed and abusive Gutless"

The nearest I can get to finding abuse is someone called her a dimwit and another called her and airhead --pretty mild stuff!

But that was after she told us:
1) Lies were being peddled in parliament --and only she a few others knew the truth.
2) The media was <<bedding>> politicians (the mind boggles!
3) And we were morally corrupt.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 17 April 2014 12:32:03 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 support freedom of speech and the right to protest, however both can be done in a lawful way and without interfering with other people.

Would it impress the public? No, I don't think so, particularly if there was trespass. There are democratic decisions and regulations that inconvenience most people at some time or other, but it is not acceptable to take the law into your own hands, and create more work for the police and courts.

Some could see it as a selfish, self-promoting media stunt that unnecessarily inconvenienced other citizens who were going about their private business.

An unfortunate side effect could be that it might encourage activists who are unhappy with churches to stage their protests on church property and maybe during services.

An approved protest in an approved public area could have been more effective. That would be the up-front, inclusive, participative way of doing things.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 17 April 2014 1:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce Haigh,

While I see personal abuse as counterproductive, there needs to be some numeracy applied to this issue. The Gallup Poll organization in the US has conducted surveys around the world in countries that hold more than 98% of the world's people. They asked people if they would like to emigrate and where they would prefer to go if they could. They then calculated a "potential net migration index" for each country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166796/potential-net-migration-index-declines-countries.aspx

Australia's is 136%, meaning that if we opened our borders, our population would immediately more than double. It is actually worse than that. If the other preferred destination countries didn't also open their borders, then most of the people who would like to go to Europe or the US would no doubt happily move to Australia as a second choice, at least until conditions became as bad here as in the places that they were trying to escape. Open borders are suicidal, and that is effectively what you are asking for.

An asylum seeker arrives by boat after having destroyed his travel documents and identification. He tells an unverifiable story that ticks all the boxes of the Refugee Convention. The Immigration Department official is advised to give asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt, and it won't be a good career move to get it wrong and reject someone who ends up killed or tortured. Even if an asylum seeker is rejected, it is likely to be impossible to deport him in practice. He has no documents, so how do we prove where he came from? Even when there is no controversy on his nationality, his home country may refuse to cooperate. Iran has been notorious for this. The numbers can snowball until they are truly mindboggling. There were half a million asylum claims in the UK between 1997 and 2004, when the UK got tougher, not counting dependants who arrived later. Only 23% were found to be genuine refugees, even after appeal. 76% of the failed asylum seekers were not deported.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/9.14

See also

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 17 April 2014 1:40:36 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
BEECHy/quote..<<..An approved protest in an approved public area could have been more effective.>>

thats so funny/recall the earlier link/TO LAST MONDAYS SHOW/down
it was mentioned..toDAY..THE HIRED THUGS..'created a rree speech ZONE'
[READ caged off area]..in the middle*.LOL.. of nowhere..the Arizona plains
http://rss.infowars.com/20140416_Wed_Alex.mp3

ON THE BUTCH..YOUR Amazingly on point..of what THE MAN WANTS
[Us gagged to protest]..anywhere OR Anytime..at all..OUT OF sight..[off/SITE]..OUT OF mind.

..[go protest here/no..GO HERE../or over there..
no we can STILL HEAR..YOU/GO TO JAil..break ya arms..handcuff.the works

[tell me beach bum..you ever hAD TO SIGN ANYTHING TO GET OUT OF JAIL/oR Do you jail-em..on command..OR JUST BLOG THE COMPANY LINE?

like SEE HOW..the armed thugs [MERCENARIES]..backed off at the bundi farM?..we just NEED A RALLYING POINT..AND BRING THE LOST KIDDIES HOME..Instead of sitting in jail we are bringing them homE.

<<>.An approved protest in an approved public area could have been more effective.>>

rubbish..its called containment
look up the approved protest zones at g20..colonization meeting in Brisbane..FREE SPEECH ZONES ARE INTIMIDATION..unlawful..

<<.. That would be the up-front, inclusive, participative way of doing things.>>

THEY DON'T WANT US
THEY Want the jailing contracts for their mates to train mercenaries to take others lands/OR WE CAN OFFER TO MAKE THEM PROTECTORS..OF OTHERS VALUES[COMMON WEALTH]

talking with you is draining..but think mate
they deserve to be safe..aT HOME..FIGURE OUT WHY THEY CAME HERE
GIVE IT TO THEM TO GIVE TO THOSE BACK home..see you have a home/THINK WHAT COULD POSSIBLY DRIVE YOU AWAY>

GIVE THEM Lawyers and armed guards/TO SEND HIM THE MERCENARIES STEALING THEIR HOMES AND Farms..let agree to RESTORE TO CEASER THAT Rightfully his.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 17 April 2014 1:45:38 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
Dear Graham, for the past few days I have wondered if you have a line drawn, below which you will not publish comments, often quite offensive, abusing authors and/or comment writers?
It is demeaning not to be presented with considered opinions but, basically, to feel one is slogging through effluent from persons who, in print, appear to be bigots [all, of course have a legal right to be bigots] or despisers of those without their own attitude toward humankind.
Posted by carol83, Thursday, 17 April 2014 2:00:12 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
Dear Carol83

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Luke 6:41

<<being foul mouthed and abusive. Gutless [Bruce Haigh]>>

<<They are the usual grim, nasty, disappointed and abusive lot [Sells]>>

<<Many are just scared small minded people with issues [SteeleRedux]>>
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 17 April 2014 2:10:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

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