Regardless of who or what they are and how they get here the last thing arid, water deficient, environmentally fragile Australia needs is more people.
If we need/must/want to accept more refugees then reductions must be made to immigration and births, natural or unnatural.
We MUST have a sustainable and stable population.
NOT unlimited population increase for business`s and its own sake.

Isobel, a heartfelt argument. I tend to view it from a legal perspective. The wanton disregard for our obligations under the Convention and later Protocol on Refugees is symptomatic of a broader trend observable in the so-called western democracies. We wage illegal wars on behalf of our "great and powerful friend". War crimes are committed. Yet the word "accountability" seems to have disappeared from the lexicon.

Our mainstream media are no more than cheerleaders for this conduct. The current misreporting over Ukraine followed the sustained misinformation campaigns that date back, at least in my memory, to the Vietnam War years.

Not the least of the appalling results of government policies and media cheerleading is that a majority of Australians think the refugee policy is a "good thing". It is all part of the same general degeneration of our moral, ethical and legal standards. Allowing Morrison and his ilk to get away with this appalling conduct may be seen as the canary in the coal mine. Ultimately it is the end of democratic society governed by the rule of law.

We do not need welfare for lifers as well as the problem of 95% on most boats were men.

The present Government is fixing Australia after the last incompetents let in over 50,000 of them.

The Convention is over 50 years old and does not take the current climate of world events into consideration as is demonstrated by the country shopping refugees.

All the land illegally occupied by perpetrators like this land MUST be put in control of UNO for administration.Australia is one of such areas which was invaded by blood thirsty devils and hunted killing its inhabitants and want to stop people running away from their own land made the battle field by the same people who are responsible for human miseries all over the world.

Blackthorn > almost all of Australia's humanitarian intake (a tiny 13,750), will be selected from countries of first asylum.

And so it should be.

> one that has spiralled Australia down to the basement of human depravity.

A personal opinion from a bleeding heart. Worth nothing.

> the phrase, 'we do not report on operational matters,' trotted out at every turn.

Exactly, otherwise the bleeding hearts would report to the enemy on ways to get around the efforts to stop the Queue jumpers & help the people smugglers.

> A few treads lower and we forced asylum seekers on board orange lifeboats and pointed them back at Indonesia.

It worked, what more can I say, much to the disappointment of the bleeding hearts.

> Nauru and Manus Island, in conditions likened to a gulag,

Much better than the UNCHR Camps though.

> The pace of processing fostering in the minds of detainees a psychological horror without end.

It worked, what more can I say, much to the disappointment of the bleeding hearts. Though because of their Religion most of them have psychological problems before they got to Indonesia.

> Immigration detention psychiatrist Dr Peter Young stated that treatment of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru was, 'akin to torture,' and 'deliberately designed to cause harm.'

No the opinion of a Western Based Philologist with Western Based assessment tools. Not valid in this case.

> Settled in Cambodia, anywhere but Australia, and the implications have to be that we are white and we are supreme,

Thank God for that. These people by their own admission are incompatable with Western Society.

Cont

cont

> as was poignantly depicted in Robin de Crespigny's,The People Smuggler.

A nice fictional novel.

> We are being systematically conditioned into accepting the cruel treatment of others as necessary and inevitable.

Another false statement designed to gather sympathy by the bleeding heart society.

> They are illegal's, queue jumpers who should be made to wait their turn. If strong measures aren't taken we'll be swamped and, worse,

Could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

> Such myths are promulgated by our government and reinforced in the media

No they are not. one only has to look at the European model to see what the end result is.

> even as they are refuted by organisations such as the Refugee Council of Australia and shown through concrete evidence to be false.

A Bleeding heart Society led by the loony Greenies who cry at anything & everything.

> In an ideological war, in which a dominant set of beliefs is imposed upon citizenry as taken-for-granted reality,

Unfortunately for you it is a reality. You may not like it but truth is truth no matter how much you wish to deny it.

> it matters not that the humanitarian among us counter the ideology with truth.

You are right, we really don't care how much your sensitivities are hurt by the Ideology of truth.

> those compassionate and broad-minded among us protest through all legitimate means at our disposal.

And, like all loonies, should be ignored & rightly so.

Good move Mr Morrison,
This will further discourage the illegals from trying to use Indonesia as a stepping stone to Australia.

Now all we need is a cut in the number of refugees that we accept.

May I suggest you look to not accepting refugees from Afghanistan, where it is common for girls to be 'married' at 6 and young boys are taken for sexual pleasure. That ingrained culture puts our young at risk and is not acceptable in Aus.

Dear Ateday,

<<Regardless of who or what they are and how they get here the last thing arid, water deficient, environmentally fragile Australia needs is more people.
If we need/must/want to accept more refugees then reductions must be made to immigration and births, natural or unnatural.>>

So far I fully agree!

<<We MUST have a sustainable and stable population.>>

But I don't agree with the word 'MUST': we should WANT a sustainable and stable population - better still, a reducing population from current levels and if we don't have it, then our life will be bad, but it doesn't mean that we are morally permitted to forbid others the practice of increasing population by any method. All we may legitimately do is to stop all incentives to that practice: that in itself should be sufficient to solve the problem.

in reply to "Posted by Banjo"

Other than Original inhabitants all others are migrants and the most horrible are those who who invaded and massacred people who were living here for centuries.Ask Morrison how and when his roots started here.Those who are running away from to save life are not the perpetrators like Morrison and his like.

No point in not having a sustainable and stable population.
Whatever that level may be but certainly less than at present.

James O'Neill

We have already repeatedly established that your claims that Australia's policy on asylum-seekers breaches Australia's obligations of international law are:
1. legally baseless, and
2. knowing dishonesty on your part.

Either admit it, or prove what obligations are breached.

Isobel, James

Great news! No need to worry about it any more. I've got the solution.

Just let you, and everyone who agrees with you, print out, sign and distribute the following and the problem will be solved - if it's true that you stand for society.

DECLARATION OF TRUST

I, the undersigned, hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I hold the whole of my property, both real and personal, ON TRUST to pay for all the costs of dealing with asylum-seekers to Australia with the compassion, and to the standards, I proclaim as good and morally necessary.

This includes all costs of:
• Ensuring their safety at sea and safely landing in Australian territory
• Health and identity checks
• Accommodation, food, health, mental health, sport, recreation, training during processing
• The costs of determination of refugee status, including all reviews administrative and judicial
• The costs of administration, including all premises, staff, salaries, tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday leave, flex leave, long service leave, maternity leave, study leave
• The costs of resettlement including income support, housing, and training
• Full indemnity for any crimes, including full costs of legal, court, admininstrative costs, and impact on victims.

I declare I am appalled by, and condemn the moral depravity of current policy on asylum-seekers.

On that basis, I make this solemn declaration as legally binding with the intention that any person in Australia should have and does hereby have a legal action against me in law and equity for judgment as to the whole of my property in repayment of any and all of the above costs, in satisfaction of the values of humanity I have publicly declared without so far having to, or ever intending to, put my money where my mouth is.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

Isobel Blackthorn
James O’Neill, and
Everyone in the Labor party

Go ahead. Let's see you do it. You can post the signed deed by PDF into this thread. Make sure you include your proper name and address so we'll know where to serve the writ.

JON: We wage illegal wars on behalf of our "great and powerful friend". War crimes are committed. Yet the word "accountability" seems to have disappeared from the lexicon.

Hmm. Lets see these people are being persecuted by a Religious Government. We go to help those people & they leave anyway. We change the Government then the others leave. In other places they say they are fleeing persecution, but it's not form the Government. It's from the Taliban, but not their Government. So what makes them refugees.

You say "We" caused the problem, yet this is where they come to. Isn't that strange, aren't "We" "the enemy."

JON: The current misreporting over Ukraine followed the sustained misinformation campaigns that date back, at least in my memory, to the Vietnam War years.

So are you saying it's the Ukrainians fault not the Rebels & their Russian allies. Going against the grain again are we James.

JON: Not the least of the appalling results of government policies and media cheerleading is that a majority of Australians think the refugee policy is a "good thing".

James, you have got that back to front. It's the people that are influencing the Government here.

JON: Ultimately it is the end of democratic society governed by the rule of law.

Are you upset because your lucrative Lawyer type scam is drying up James.
cont

Cont
PhilipS: The Convention is over 50 years old and does not take the current climate of world events into consideration as is demonstrated by the country shopping refugees.

I agree. The Convention was designed for a Eurocentric refugee problem of Christian & Jewish people. not a Middle Eastern problem with Islamic people hell bent on destroying Western Civilization slowly at first.

Bulla: All the land illegally occupied by perpetrators like this land MUST be put in control of UNO for administration

You think you have problems now. The UN take over. I'd like to see that. Maybe all people that aren't aboriginal should leave Australia remove ALL Western influences & return it to the bus it once was. You, of course realize that means NO western things like rifles, fishing lines, tinnies, cars, houses, ciggies & phalgons, etc, & no clothes, especially no clothes. None of these things were here before the arrival of the European. Australia, to be left in its "original state."

' You, of course realize that means NO western things like rifles, fishing lines, tinnies, cars, houses, ciggies & phalgons, etc, & no clothes, especially no clothes. None of these things were here before the arrival of the European. Australia, to be left in its "original state."'

you forgot welfare and medical services Jayb.

" almost all of Australia's humanitarian intake (a tiny 13,750)"

13.75k is not a tiny intake for a country of 25 million. It's 1 in 2000 - *each year*. And each of those 1 in 2000 will turn right around and say "Oh, BTW, I have family - can they come too?" as soon as they have permanent residency. By law, they can.

I don't know Ms.BLACHTHORN, after reading your article where you denounce the way Australia is dealing with these alleged asylum seekers, I really wonder what sort of country we'll become if you and your lunatic brethren achieve your objectives ?

Generation after generation of hardworking Aussies, amongst them the tens of thousands of decent, hard-working 'legitimate' migrants, who've also worked their back's off, to create this great nation of ours, all of whom have unfailingly, 'Value Added' to the country, not only with their hard work, but their food, and culture, and with their fantastic music, amongst other things ?

Yet you and your kind wish to irrevocably destroy all of their collective efforts, by allowing these highly suspect, economic refugees, into our country to pursue a life of largesse, munificence and free accommodation, possibly for life, a case of permanent succour, all at the taxpayers expense ! It's plainly CRIMINAL Ms BLACKTHORN, as are YOU and your cohorts, if you continue to support such a unethical measure.

JKJ You raise the same tired idiocies every time this topic comes up. If you want a legal opinion you can pay the going rate. Alternatively you can ask Graeme to actually publish a factual article on the topic; or you can do your own research. You might like to start with Hathaway & Foster The Law of Refugee Status 2nd ed 2014.

JayB I specialise in international human rights law, not refugee law. Given the behaviour of successive Australian governments and their like minded friends that well is unlikely to ever dry up. I hope you never need a lawyer to combat your detention without trial; your control orders; your child born in Brisbane being defined as an "illegal maritime entrant" or any of the other myriad assaults upon traditional notions of justice carried in Parliament on the votes of both Labor and Coalition politicians. Then you would be in the uncomfortable position of explaining to your lawyer that he/she is really part of a scam and their services are not required.

Just look for example at the current Bill before the House on refugees. It seeks to bypass the courts and give untrammelled power to the Minister. If you had half a notion of what the rule of law means that should give even you pause to think. Alas, on the evidence of your posts that is a step too far.

JayB "So are you saying it's the Ukrainians fault not the Rebels & their Russian allies. Going against the grain again are we James."

Actually if you read my post I was citing Ukraine as an example of the barrage of misinformation we are subjected to. I should add to that the systematic withholding of information which is almost as bad.

Going against the grain as you put it is never of concern if one has a sound evidence based argument. The "grain" in the present case is the lies and omissions of the mainstream press. You might like to join JKJ and invite Graeme to actually publish a factual analysis of the Ukraine situation. As you are never likely to ask and Graeme has shown no inclination to publish something other than the official western version, can I direct you to a website called Vineyard of the Saker. He is based in Florida, but don't let that deter you. Some of the best critical analysis of US foreign policy comes from American sources. Just such a pity it never sees the light of day in our media, mainstream or otherwise.

Isobel: You're talking rubbish!
Asylum seekers are just not prevented from seeking asylum here!
All they need do is fly here on a stock standard tourist visa, and with their documentation intact!
And once having arrived, [and for considerably less than they might pay people smugglers,] apply for asylum.

In which case their claims will be processed in a timely manner!
And should their claims be validated, handed a TPV.
We are under no obligation to accord them any more.

Yet there is a pathway to permanent residency, and that has to be earned.
And as simple as the TPV holder, working industrially, learning english and fitting in with the community!
Rhrosty.

Isobel Blackthorne is an evil person.

She has no loyalty to her own people or her own culture. She wishes to burden our society with ever increasing numbers of unassimilatble third world people who's loyalties are suspect, and who have already proven to have high incidences of welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour.

The debilitating effects upon her own society are manifest but Isobel does not care. She does not care that the basis of our successful, secular democracy, free speech, no longer applies in this country because of the sensitivities of the people she wishes to import. These people do not take criticism lightly even though an examination of their cultural values might point out where their previous societies went wrong. Police powers have increased to such an extent that state police are starting to look like storm troopers. They have unprecedented powers of stop and search thanks largely to our out of control ethnic communities with their gun violence and terrorism.

That many of these people came from violence prone multicultural societies where they could never live together anyway does not worry Isobel one whit. Isobel thinks that everybody should celebrate and maintain their own dysfunctional cultures. That of course, excludes white people who's culture is successful. White culture must be submerged and destroyed because everything bad that ever happened in the world was all the fault of white people.

As Australians abandon their traditional working class suburbs in terror to get as far away as they can get from the sort of people that Isobel wants to import, she fiddles and plays the role of the morally pure, complete with a halo. You may be a hero to problematic foreigners, Isobel, but your children's children who will be the ones to inherit an unstable, socially divided country who's population demographics are reaching critical mass.

And they might have another name for you which starts with a "T".

So now we know why James O'Neill talks so much garbage. An international human rights lawyer, a teat sucker par excellence.

Vested interest has a great deal to do with all his posts.

He & our author are most interested in anything but the well being of the general Ozzie public.

Ease up Lego, it's just status signalling, Isobel wants everyone to understand that she's one of the "good people", the morally superior, White, middle class.
Isobel isn't a traitor because she's not one of us, she says certain words and phrases and in her mind that makes her better than everyone else,the word you're looking for to describe her begins with S and ends in Nob.
This is a pretty good article, it's about Ferguson Missouri but it's meaningful across the board, the rioters like the refugees, the scam artists and the people smugglers are showing more human characteristics than the White, middle class social justice warriors or the "racists".
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/11/of-chimps-and-men.html#more
Heck for that matter ISIS, Boko Haram and the Taliban are more human than the Greens, Socialist Alliance, The Q Society or Rise Up!

So we have a lawyer who seemingly practices human rights law ? A Mr James O'NEILL I believe ? Why that particular discipline Mr O'Neill ? Wouldn't you feel more useful to the Australian community if you specialised in Succession, or Contract even Media Law, all quite good money earners and useful to those individuals in the community in which you reside ? Oh well come the next Labour Government you might well be called to the Bar ? James O'Neill SC has a nice ring to it eh James !

James Oneill is not a lawyer he's a pretender and a bad pretender at that I think. Thats the problem with people like him he causes to much trouble for the argument and therefore we lose the dabate altogether. We must allow all the people into the country after they take that very dangerious trip from Indonesia by boat otherwise people in other countries will call Australia a racist country which we are not. James Oneill should stop telling lies about his been a lawyer because he's not a lawyer at all he's just a poser.

O sung wu. I was actually called to the bar in 1984. I practice in that area of law because I happen to believe it is of fundamental importance. The history of legal development in the common law world for the past 800 years has been about a battle to gain and retain basic rights for individuals. Those rights are currently under unprecedented attack, and are all the more dangerous for being advanced in the name of "protecting" us from the enemy du jour.

@ Misanthrope. If you crawl out from under the rock of anonymity I will introduce you to the law of defamation. Trolls like you seem to think that the OLO forum (and undoubtedly others) give you some sort of licence to spill your ignorant and defamatory bile. The resale world is rather different.

James,
No, trolling is the practice of making deliberately controversial statements in online fora to draw others into a pointless circular discussion, "trolling for suckers" was the original phrase. People like us genuinely hate people like you, that's not a controversial or "trollish" statement and epithets like "parasite" or "shyster" are both accurate and appropriate when describing members of the legal fraternity who use the courts to subvert the nation and engage in culture busting. Some other adjectives which would suffice are "solipsistic", "vain","imperious", "elitist" and "bigoted".
"Human Rights" is a White supremacist notion, the regal White elite would ladle out privilege from the great big melting pot to every indolent Asian guttersnipe who presented at the mission but the choice cuts and sweetmeats they always hold by for their own kids.

James O'Neill

I didn't get your signed Declaration of Trust. Perhaps you signed it and stuck it on the wall where your visitors could see what a moral hero you are?

No. SIGN IT AND POST IT HERE IN PDF SO WE CAN ALL RELY ON IT AND SO YOU CAN PROVE YOU'RE NOT LYING. Simple.

Your argument is that Australia breached its international obligations, as proved by
a) calling someone an idiot for challenging you to prove it and pointing out that you have been proved actively dishonest on this twice before, and
b) saying someone is "crawling out from under a rock" when they challenge you.

You're the one saying Australia breached its international obligations. You need to prove it. The idiocy is all your own.

James, I told you, PROVE what international obligations Australia has breached, don't just squark dishonestly about them.

Wow! I'm impressed.

Called to the bar.

Was that god calling, or just the voices in your head James.

Talk about a stuffed shirt.

To James O'Neill

Aristotle claimed that "the highest morality is the protection of ones own people." On that principle, my morality trumps yours.

WW1 was a shock to all of you (at the time) educated elitist super patriots who managed to get yourselves almost shot right out of existence. From that ghastly experience your brahmin caste went in the opposite direction and decided that Nationalism had replaced The Seven Deadly Sins. WW2 added Racism to the creed of those who endlessly blather on about human equality while looking down their noses at anybody who does not possess a degree.

Your claim to be morally superior on the subject of "refugees" is simply vanity, and the deep felt belief that nationalism and racism are the cause of all the world's woes. As a legal person, you are trained to think in absolutes, because that is how laws are defined. So you simply can't imagine how any concept like nationalism or racism can be judged good or bad by degrees. You may believe in thirty shades of grey for homosexuality, but nationalism and racism can only be absolutely wrong in every degree.

Once that philosophy is accepted and internalised, your duty as a human being is clear to you. You have no loyalty to your own people because that is "nationalism" and nationalism is wrong. You support boat people because to oppose it would be "racism" and that is wrong too. Whatever detrimental effects that multiculturism has upon your own society is something you ignore because you can't Save The World unless you adhere strictly to the principle of renouncing nationalism and racism.

Like every ideological zealot of every stripe, you have the amazing ability to ignore any self evident fact which clearly displays that your principles are wrong. It does not matter how many multicultural societies tear themselves apart in civil wars, or how many times the importation of certain ethnicities has always caused serious social strife in every country that imported them. You refuse to look over your ideological blinkers to see what you desperately do not want to see.

Lego that's a fantastic post.

<<Lego that's a fantastic post.>>

I second this.

Still, I do not agree with Aristotle, at least not on this account, but it doesn't detract from the beauty of LEGO's post.

Yes got it in a nutshell Lego.

The only answer for the elitists to your post, is to pretend they didn't read it.

JON: We wage illegal wars on behalf of our "great and powerful friend". War crimes are committed. Yet the word "accountability" seems to have disappeared from the lexicon.

Hmm. Lets see these people are being persecuted by a Religious Government. We go to help those people & they leave anyway. We change the Government then the others leave. In other places they say they are fleeing persecution, but it's not form the Government. It's from the Taliban, but not their Government. So what makes them refugees.

You say "We" caused the problem, yet this is where they come to. Isn't that strange, aren't "We" "the enemy."

JON: The current misreporting over Ukraine followed the sustained misinformation campaigns that date back, at least in my memory, to the Vietnam War years.

So are you saying it's the Ukrainians fault not the Rebels & their Russian allies. Going against the grain again are we James.

JON: Not the least of the appalling results of government policies and media cheerleading is that a majority of Australians think the refugee policy is a "good thing".

James, you have got that back to front. It's the people that are influencing the Government here.

JON: Ultimately it is the end of democratic society governed by the rule of law.

Are you upset because your lucrative scam is drying up James

PhilipS: The Convention is over 50 years old and does not take the current climate of world events into consideration as is demonstrated by the country shopping refugees.

I agree. The Convention was designed for a Eurocentric refugee problem of Christian & Jewish people. not a Middle Eastern problem with Islamic people hell bent on destroying Western Civilization slowly at first.

Bulla: All the land illegally occupied by perpetrators like this land MUST be put in control of UNO for administration

You think you have problems now. The UN take over. I'd like to see that. Maybe all people that aren't aboriginal should leave Australia remove ALL Western influences & return it to the bus it once was. You, of course realize that means NO western things like rifles, fishing lines, tinnies, cars, houses, ciggies & phalgons, etc, & no clothes, especially no clothes. None of these things were here before the arrival of the European. Australia, to be left in its "original state."

JON: @ Misanthrope. If you crawl out from under the rock of anonymity I will introduce you to the law of defamation.

It's OK @Misanthrope. JON threatens everybody with defamation. Not a Lawyer, just a Grumpy Old Man who can't get his own way. You know JON if you feel that the West is to blame for everything that goes wrong you should move to North Korea. You know somewhere nice.

beautifully put JayOM. Here, here.

Mr O'Neill the fact that you're a lawyer doesn't necessarily confer any moral nor legitimate right to attack the opinions of others ! I too have spent many years adversarially confronting all stratum of the criminal bench. It's for this reason I'm so puzzled with your affected and condescending style, that gives rise to an apparent perception of your manifest superiority to all of those who seek to furnish their own opinion(s) herein ?

Furthermore you seem to imply because of your legal training, those who seek to question much of what you assert should beware, lest they render themselves perilously close to some action in Tort ?
You and I both know you're just kidding when you threatened that other 'poster' MISANTHROPE about the laws of slander weren't you ? Even a freshmen law student understands that particular suite of lectures apropos Defamation et al. ? In what measure by the way, do you consider you were Defamed ? As a potential plaintiff, may I draw your attention to the many Defences available to that particular discipline of 'Defamation'.

In conclusion Mr O'Neill, I don't know whether you're are a legitimate advocate, articled clerk, suburban solicitor or an eminent silk, but in this Forum, we are all equal, we all have an opinion, and provided we confine our comments to the Rules of this Forum, then all opinion is both valid and valued in equal measure. So, please just enjoy yourself, simply as James, individual.

Hi there LEGO...

I've just re-read your latest 'thread', and much of what you say is without doubt; unerringly correct ! You have managed to capture a widely held belief of most of the adult population, precisely ! Yet there are still those, noisy minority 'swarms', who seem to be always heard by some of our more politically correct leaders ? I wonder why ? Bravo 'LEGO' Bravo !

@ o sung wu. Thank you for your civil response. It is a great deal better than many of the immediately preceding posts that are nothing less than personal attacks upon me, most by people who hide behind anonymity. They consistently fail to address the issues. Their insults are not only frequently contradictory, but attribute characteristics to me that I would fairly claim are not made by people who actually know me.

I try and confine my comments on this forum to subjects about which I would claim some knowledge. Alas, that is not a characteristic of many who so write. As any fair analysis of umpteen posts made by a relatively small number of people show, there is a consistency about them in which the dominant characteristics are ignorance, bigotry, an absence of even elementary evidence based argument, and a delight in making ridiculous demands and/or insults upon those who have the temerity to disagree with their world view.

I shall endeavour to make comments that add to the debate. If that appears as condescending or any of the other character flaws attributed to me, then that is more the fault of reader than it is of me.

James,
Wah,wah,wah, all mouth and no trousers, there's not a shred of substance in that post it's just a spoilt white boy dummy spit.
Normal folk understand that you have to treat people differently based on their ethnic background and because of that we take people of other races as we find them, hell it's not like we have any choice, we don't just project an upper class Anglo Saxon sensibility onto everything they say or do.
It's a grotesque form of, can I say anthropomorphism?
While I don't spend a lot of time with people of other races I spend a great deal of time around upper middle class, White inner city dwellers and the way they speak about Somalis or Afghans is the same way they might speak of Dolphins or a dog they're particularly attached to.
Isobel is projecting her White, privileged mindset onto people who are not very intelligent and whose genes shape a way of thinking and relating to the world is completely different to her own and you're defending her.
Here's a pretty fantastic video illustrating my point, Ferguson is turning into a goldmine of quotes and footage of White liberals and others being mugged by reality, the "peaceful protestor" in the mask is berating a liberal reporter who is himself black but is perceived as an "Uncle Tom".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-B1acMvCjQ&app=desktop
Great huh? See he'll support his own people unconditionally even when they're in the wrong and he doesn't even seem to understand liberal ideals much less live by them.
In Europe the Islamists are already turning on the Lefties and do gooders and it'll happen here too once they have the numbers and enough White converts in their ranks:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109317&s=9a377544ce1605a39eb26abf3931bc8b&p=1377282&viewfull=1#post1377282

Hi there JAMES...

Oh it's no bother at all my friend, we're all on The Forum to extract, to a greater or lesser degree, an audience of some kind in order that we may ventilate our thoughts and opinions on various issues that directly or indirectly impact upon our lives. For me personally, it's all a bit of fun James, an opportunity to tease out many of the more complex factors that our government believe may work favourably, in the public interest ? That's it really, nothing remotely sinister or portentous.

I do like how everyone congratulates liberal for stopping the boats but have you thought about how they are doing it ? Defense is paying for it and they are not happy, Our Navy is being used as a coast guard operation.A lot war machinery picking up boats highly trained personnel picking up boats.... I wonder how long this arrangement will last before the crap hits the fan and real cost comes out.
Another slide of hand from our PM

To James O'Neill.

The point of Isobel Blackthorne's article, is that Australians are breaking a treaty and do not agree with her position on "refugees", because we are greedy, selfish, immoral and reprehensible people. And you agree with her. Both of you are therefore indulging in a very personnel attack upon your opponents. But when one of your opponents turns the table on you, and examines whether your own opinions are altruism or self interest, you stand on your dignity and wail that you are being attacked personally.

I must have hit a nerve if you resort to ignoring my post, and then justify that decision by citing what is clearly a double standard.

The key to changing any person's mind, is to get inside their heads and force them to examine how they came to think that their opinions are correct. My premise,is, that people of your Brahmin caste have not objectively thought out the issues involved. You and your peers simply parrot a moralising groupthink who's group position is more concerned with enhancing their collective self esteem, than any real concern about morality. Your moral position is a sham.

This is a common position for traitors to take. There appears to be two main kinds of traitors, the common criminal whom sells out his people for profit, and the ones who sell out their people for an ideology which supports their self esteem. Famous self esteem traitors like Philby, Burgess, McLean and Sir Anthony Blunt (the British left wing bureaucracy award knighthoods to their known traitors) were all upper class twits who spied for the KGG, for what they considered to be the very noblest of reasons.

Like you, they were convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority, and they wanted to Save The World. To do that, they accepted the socialist ideology as being intrinsically correct and they ignored any inconvenient facts that contradicted that opinion. They then indulged in treason against their own people with a clear conscience.

I respectfully submit, Mr O'Neill, that you are doing exactly the same thing for the same reason

James O'Neill

"They consistently fail to address the issues."

You are lying. I have consistently addressed the issues by asking you to prove what you claim: that Australia is breaching its obligation in international law.

You have NEVER done it, and this is the third time I have had to call you on your lying.

Your last attempt was simply to call me an idiot.

All
Imagine the scene. James O'Neill goes to the High Court to seek an order against the Commonwealth.

Chief Justice: "Yes Mr O'Neill? How do you prove your claim that the Australian government is in breach of its international obligations in respect of refugees?"
JO'N: "Because Jardine K. Jardine is an idiot."
The Court: "What?"
JON: "I said, because Jardine K. Jardine is an idiot."
Court: "What do you mean? Who's that?"
JON: "It's a guy on the internet."
Court: "What?"
JON: "There's a site on the internet, called Online Opinion."
Court: "Hmm. Yes? And...?"
JON: "Well, he's on there."
Court: "Jardine K. Jardine is there?"
JON: "Yes your Honours."
Court. "I see. And is that your main argument?"
JON: "Yes your Honours."
Court: "I see. Case dismissed. Plaintiff to pay costs. Idiot."

A timely reminder for the less well informed:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/11/21/4133386.htm

No doubt a red flag to the bulls of bigotry and racism in Australia.

I find articles like this written by some half baked academic just so pathetic. No mention is made of the fact that the Convention is so old that its not funny, nor of the inconvenient facts that:

a) Its in the interest if the people like OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) to see that refugees are created by any means, and that they are encouraged to leave and become part of the none Muslim Anglo sphere, as part of their global domination or Ummah,under Sharia law. I have first hand knowledge of this from an Iman

b) The OIC is the largest voting block in the UN, and has come close to shutting down our freedoms of speech on two occasions at the Durban 1&2 Conferences

c) Immigration into The EU is having a disastrous effect upon their crime rates, and cultural integrity. In Sweden alone, and up to September this year there 300 rapes of minors, and 700 rapes of young women reported ...having been committed by north African Muslims. We wont mention the 20 years of children in Rotherham UK being groomed and used by the Pakistanis.. all head bangers.

d)No mention made of the fact that as a consequence of consanguineous marriages going back over hundreds of years (marrying second cousins etc.) has lead to high levels of still births and deformities, as well as arrested intellectual ability. Indeed the Danish army undertakes IQ and Aptitude tests on new recruits ad ahs found that Arabs in general have a ca. 20 point deficiency... compared to indigenous Danes

I could go on... but what's the point ...her article is just more poorly researched selective analysis with a touchy feely bent and no comprehension of the wider issues.

I have no problem with selective immigration and giving safe haven to those legitimately in strife, but our humanity of being used and abused by the OIC and their members ...to our certain disadvantage

When the Ayatollah Khomeini visited Australia in 1976 (I think) he made a speech to the Muslims of Australia. He Encouraged them to get all their families & Relatives to immigrate to Australia, as Australia was a Theocratic Desert & ripe to Conversion to Islam.

This is exactly what is happening.

By the way. Look up the Ayatollah's "Little Green Book." Definitely worth a read.

when the Ayatollah Khomeini visited Australia in 1976 (I think) he made a speech to the Muslims of Australia. He Encouraged them to get all their families & Relatives to immigrate to Australia, as Australia was a Theocratic Desert & ripe to Conversion to Islam.

This is exactly what is happening.

By the way. Look up the Ayatollah's "Little Green Book." Definitely worth a read.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 1 December 2014 4:23:40 PM

So what is wrong.How and who made original inhabitants of this land Christians and then exploited physically,mentally and wealth.

bulla: By the way. Look up the Ayatollah's "Little Green Book." Definitely worth a read.
So what is wrong. How and who made original inhabitants of this land Christians and then exploited physically, mentally and wealth

It's obvious you didn't even attempt to look up "The Little Green Book."

Did you get my post about all non-Aboriginal peoples should remove themselves from Australia & give the land back to the Original Inhabitants & leave it in it's Original condition?

No houses, tinnies, welfare, education, rifles, fishing gear, Clothes (remember everyone was naked), cars, roads. Sound good to you. I have advocated that those Aboriginals who wish to live in in their Traditional Manner be given a Home Land where they can live in their Original State. Once in there they can never come out & no contact with Europeans is ever allowed.

Do you think that that would be a good idea, Bulla

JKJ You manage to be offensive, inaccurate and fanciful. All in one post. I was tempted to ignore your latest idiocies but no doubt further down the track you would accuse me, wrongly, of not answering your question for whatever offensive reason comes to your small mind on that particular day.

I have already suggested you go to the latest text on the issue, but if that is too big a task you might go to Richard Ackland's article in The Guardian on line:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/when-children-are-bashed-on-nauru-it-is-a-matter-for-australian-law-whatever-scott-morrison-says

You might even follow up the links Ackland provides. Then we might be free of your tiresome trolling on this issue.

bulla: By the way. Look up the Ayatollah's "Little Green Book." Definitely worth a read.
So what is wrong. How and who made original inhabitants of this land Christians and then exploited physically, mentally and wealth

It's obvious you didn't even attempt to look up "The Little Green Book."

Did you get my post about all non-Aboriginal peoples should remove themselves from Australia & give the land back to the Original Inhabitants & leave it in it's Original condition?

No houses, tinnies, welfare, education, rifles, fishing gear, Clothes (remember everyone was naked), cars, roads. Sound good to you. I have advocated that those Aboriginals who wish to live in in their Traditional Manner be given a Home Land where they can live in their Original State. Once in there they can never come out & no contact with Europeans is ever allowed.

Do you think that that would be a good idea, Bulla
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 7:52:01 AM

In reply to above:

Your weird and stupid comments speaks of your mentality about others and of your type.
One has not to read about what you want them to nor to be guided by your stupid reasons.They did not ask for or have any benefits arising from invaders so called wealth or facilities created,if you so think .It is all their wealth of which they have been deprived of and secluded ,driven away to areas where these perpetrators and like of you do not want to live.Both the wars which are called world war in fact were European wars and ot is almost destined that because of the same beasts the next war is not very far.Stop bragging about what you have stated unless you can be one of them and live amongst them even for a day and then feel what it means to be robbed and seeing the robbers enjoying spoils.

James O'Neill

I am not going to be sent on an errand to construct your argument for you.

Links to left-wing newspapers prove nothing except your own failure to understand what you're talking about.

You need to PROVE what OBLIGATIONS as a matter of INTERNATIONAL LAW Australia is in breach of you lying fool, and you need to prove it IN HERE by reference to the ORIGINAL sources of those alleged obligations, not links to the absent authority of yabble-yarp that just happens to impress your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it, or concede it. Stop answering by evasion.

bulla: It is all their wealth of which they have been deprived of and secluded ,driven away to areas where these perpetrators and like of you do not want to live

What wealth. Please explain. As far as I know. Aboriginals didn't use currency. They lived in the native bush without housing, clothing, hospitals, welfare. They had no metals of any description only wood & stone tools as did the Europeans some 8 thousand years ago.

I can't seem to fathom weather or not you want to go back to that era or you want the Europeans to leave but continue to provide all the advantages European Culture brought to the Australian Aboriginal. the Latter, I think.

James
For your information, I have argued refugee cases all over Australia for over 20 years: in Port Hedland, Darwin, Curtin, and Villawood detention centres, in Melbourne remand prison, in the Immigration Department, the Refugee Review Tribunal, briefed counsel and personally argued cases in the Federal and Full Federal Courts, and originated High Court leading case law. I have employed refugee lawyers and trained them in forensic persuasion in refugee and administrative law including former judiciary, former UNHCR case officers, and a staff member who later became a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal. I have acted as the Executive Director of the Refugee Council of Australia.

I have saved more refugees from death, torture, false imprisonment and human rights abuses, than you’ve had hot dinners.

Last year doing cases on Manus Island, specifically looking for breaches by Australia of Australia’s obligations in international law, I researched the question, all the way from the source in the UN Refugees Convention, through the Australian Migration Act, to the PNG legislation and policy, to the case law.

Unlike you, I happen to know what I’m talking about.

And you post me a link to the Guardian? WTF? Your referral to a journalist whose regurgitations you have gobbled down in your eagerness to re-vomit your foregone fabble-yarp onto the public eye only shows how pathetic is both your and their intellectual dishonesty.

Either cite the original sources of international law that you say the Australian government has breached, and show facts and reason why they have breached them, or admit you are wrong.

Sick'em, Jayb abd JKJ.