'What does our treatment of asylum seekers say about national character?'

Long Answer: It tells us we're greedy, self absorbed, with no empathy.

Short Answer: We're arseholes.

Valley Guy - You might be an A-hole but because I do not want a country to have to support for life thousands of economic refugees, sexual deviants, rioter who cause $60 million dollars damage to infrastructure and who have an entitlement complex the list can go on.

We have tens of thousands of homeless Australians but not ONE homeless refugee.

Foxy and Co will be along soon to support your cause.

Yep I agree with your self assessment Valley Guy... you certainly are.

The article states "Australia is also the best country in the world to grow up in, with consistently high measures across citizen participation, economic opportunity, education, health, and safety, or so says the Global Youth Wellbeing Index."

I totally agree and I want to keep it that way, so I am not in favour of an open border policy. Personally I believe many other places in the world are envious of Australia, not just for our standard of living but also on our brave stance regarding border protection.

Once you lose control of the borders and mass immigration of unskilled/uneducated/un-assimilating migrants has reached an unacceptable level (e.g. Italy 2015) it will be too late to reverse the long term negative impacts.

We need to stand firm, be selective, and consider the future.

Personal character determines public policy. Justine has fallen prey to the propaganda of those claiming 'social' conscience. There are unlimited opportunities for individuals and nations to support the poor, needy and disadvantaged. Unfortunately socialist generally will only do it with other peoples money and when it furthers there cause. If the focus was on those waiting in camps rather than paying smugglers to come here Justin might have an arguement. To reopen and encourage the 'trade'is stupidity and displays a lack of character rather than what Justine suggests.

I am sure that if Justine was to move to Cabramatta he would not allow every stranger in his house. I would of thought that being from the Public Centre for Christianity that you would be a little more thoughtful before writing such nonsense.

There is nothing to say about "national character" because there isn't and never was such a character - the concept of "nation" is a fiction, it doesn't exist!

But perhaps the way asylum seekers are treated can say something about those who propagate this myth. In any case we cannot speak about "OUR treatment of asylum seekers" because neither myself nor probably anyone else in this forum ever gets a chance to treat asylum seekers this way or the other.

More left wing tripe. Asylum seeking has always been a racket encouraged by the United Nations, and swallowed by by gullible Australians and abetted by treasonous Australians. Tim Winton should stick to writing bad fiction.

The only morally bankrupt people in this whole sorry saga are the people smugglers and their "agents", who seek to turn a profit from this tide of human misery!

The facts are, our inherent national character is about a fair go, rather than a soft touch!

After all, we have a generous refugee policy but reserved for those whose Properly documented legitimacy cannot be questioned; given they are already eking out an existence inside bona fide refugee camps!

Given these "other folks" fly to the transit countries,if they were genuine asylum seekers, they would likely find it less costly and infinitely safer to fly on to here on a tourist visa obtained or arranged by the same travel agent that got them as far as the transit country! And having landed apply for asylum!

Replete, with the personally identifying paperwork or impeccable forgeries, that enabled them to fly to a foreign destination in the first place, still in hand!

The fact they can afford all that, then the exorbitant boat fees strongly suggests economic migration as uninvited and unwanted guests, rather than the alleged asylum seekers!

What prevents genuine Asylum seekers from flying a little further! And then apply for asylum once landed!

There's a whole lot of emotive BS written about this topic! And this seems more of the same!?
Rhrosty.

"And if that’s true of corporations, then what of nations?

Indeed.

Justine the situation with nations (translation: states) is always worse, for two reasons:
1. a state is built on its claimed monopoly of coercion. No-one is forced into buying Coca-Cola. But try not paying tax and see what happens. States get all their revenue based on their coercive powers, otherwise tax would be voluntary, wouldn't it?
2. states also exempt their directors - politicians in their official capacity - from the laws against misleading and deceptive conduct. The directors of corporations are liable to prison for their deceptive misrepresentations, but politicians can and routinely do make false misrepresentations involving billions of dollars, on which people rely in voting for them. But no prison for them.

On the other hand both coercions and fraud are illegal for companies.

Therefore even the best state is always categorically morally worse than the worst company. A state is literally a legal monopoly of force and fraud. This eliminates any claim to Christian anything based on the actions of a state, Justine. You have made a fundamentally confused and categorical error in your thinking about the issues.

It's easy to preach from the housetops about how caring you are. But Justine, it’s not the thought that counts, unfortunately. It’s the costs.

The question is, are you willing to pay the costs of the values you protest? Or are you merely using the collective “we” as a convenient hide to cover up the fact that you are trying to use the state to force others to pay for your pretended values? That is the question.

Fortunately, we have solved that issue on OLO. Below is a deed and declaration that enables you to prove that you are not a fraud and a liar in what you say in this article. Simply print it out in Word, sign it, and post the original in PDF back into this thread.

Anyone who agrees with you can do likewise.

“DEED AND 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, equipment, travel, accommodation, 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 that current asylum-seeker policy is hard-hearted, I oppose the callous treatment of the dispossessed, and I am determined to live with myself in good conscience, and therefore I publicly undertake to cultivate the kind of character that I exhort everyone else to live up to.

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

Justin Toh”

For some reason, Justine, all the other pretenders to concern about asylum-seekers have just gone quiet and slunk off at this point. But perhaps you’re different?

Either post the signed original back into this thread, or admit you’re a fake, but if you don’t reply, it means you’re a fake, okay? Fair enough?

OK, let's take the logic of 'accepting boat-people' to its semi-conclusion, without overdoing it:

Premise: The people who get on boats to come to Australia should be accepted in Australia.

Slight hitch: if they are going to be accepted anyway, why expect people to pay exorbitant fees just to get on leaky boats ? Why not just fly them direct, for the lower price of an air fare ? Whoever meets the criteria of 'refugee' and has the fare ? [Pity about those poor buggers in Africa]

Hmmmm ..consequence (1): If we can't favour person A over person B, then whoever can show that they are a refugee, and has the fare from Jakarta, can fly here and be processed, and accepted as a refugee. No quotas need apply.

Consequence (2): Why just from Jakarta ? Why not direct from Karachi, Amman, Ankara, Beirut, Cairo, etc. etc. ? Qantas can open up new ports of call just for the increased trade.

Now: should we introduce the topic of 'economic migrants' as well ? If they wish, can they come too, no restrictions ?

Better get a bigger airline.

Joe

Loudmouth

"(1): If we can't favour person A over person B, then whoever can show that they are a refugee, and has the fare from Jakarta, can fly here and be processed, and accepted as a refugee. No quotas need apply."

As things are now, there are no quotas for asylum-seekers who apply inside Australia, only for those who apply outside. That's the underlying legal reason why they try to get into Australia by boat. Because if they apply in, say Karachi, and satisfy the definition of refugee, their application can still legally be rejected. Whereas if they apply onshore, and they satisfy the definition of refugee, they can't legally be rejected.

The purpose of the Convention is to *stop* us from favouring person A over person B, so long as they can get themselves into Australia. So it's the Convention that's causing all these problems, not asylum-seekers per se.

That's also why the gumment, of both parties, want them to apply offshore: so they can control the numbers.

"Consequence (2): Why just from Jakarta ? Why not direct from Karachi, Amman, Ankara, Beirut, Cairo, etc. etc. ? Qantas can open up new ports of call just for the increased trade."

Indeed. Why not pass a law that anyone who has a claim to refugee status can fly into Australia and lodge an application?

Justine

So far as I can tell, the author is not calling for an “open border” policy of accepting all refugees, merely for more humane treatment of those who do make it to Australia. I’d support that. Specifically, I’d support:

- A strict limit on detention on children, with the norm being that children are placed in the community pending determination of their refugee status.

- No indefinite detention without trial – a commitment to determine claimants’ refugee status within a reasonable period.

- An end to offshore detention and processing.

- Greater transparency, including allowing media access to detainees, and permitting professionals such as health workers to talk to the media without losing their jobs.

Why can't we have a rational debate on the issue of
asylum-seekers. Why does it have to be a choice of -
"you're either with us or against us!"
Why do we have to view people who disagree with us
as being "bad," and thereby wanting "open borders."

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/time-to-change-our-perception-of-asylum-seekers-20140724-zvmnm.html

And -

Julian Burnside, QC offers some answers to the problem:

http://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/04/07/reality-boat-people-solution-asylum-seeker-problem/

I am proud that we no longer kill ongoing hundreds of people on the high seas to assuage the vanity of the those who want to "Vogue" compassion and care not for the consequences.

It is beyond my limited comprehension how the "compassioniartas" can so blithely kill so many, whether it is 4 roasted to the Green god in roofs, damaged and killed kiddies from whooping cough (etc), the high seas or Islamist denialism.

Rhian - "An end to offshore detention and processing" is effectively an open borders policy as far as the people smuggles are concerned. Their job is to get the people to Australia - the primary deterrent to hiring their service is the passengers will be detained offshore and highly unlikely to ever gain access into Australia.

_____________________________________________________

FOXY, I agree with this statement from your first article "it is a question of finding a way of managing the issue in our region that treats asylum seekers in a fair and dignified manner, while recognising that we can only protect a tiny proportion of the millions displaced across the world." 'Tiny' being the optimal word.

The second article is clearly from a perspective of advocating for the boat people (because they don't have the same advantage of other asylum seekers who arrive by plane). The author states, in regard to those who opt to arrive by boat - "Typically, these people travel to Malaysia or Indonesia on forged papers. They do not pass through countries that have signed the UNHCR Refugee Convention,... "

Forged papers? Why should Australia take these people?

Sorry FOXY, you are never going to convince me that taking in thousands of unskilled, uneducated, most Muslim, potential life long welfare recipients who are also inclined to not assimilate into our culture, is in Australia's best interest.

Hi Foxy,

I don't think anybody has said that those who effectively want open borders are necessarily bad - very short-sighted perhaps, political opportunists perhaps, not too bright perhaps. But not all bad.

Ask yourself: is it suggested that whoever makes it to Australia should be absorbed quickly into the welfare system and the community, and looked after until they can get on their feet ? Whoever makes it here ?

In other words, whoever makes it to Australia by leaky boat, should be able to stay ? Then why make them go through the dangerous process of paying smugglers and taking their chances on a leaky boat - why not just let them fly from Jakarta or wherever ?

And if those people, why not as many as wish to, from anywhere, as long as they can afford the air-fare ?

OR should we give some priority to the most destitute - you know, the people who will never be able to afford even an air-fare ? There are many millions of such refugees, genuine refugees.

Like it or not, either way, we are being selective: either we have some sense of priority and take the most destitute and those who have waited longest - OR we only come to life when there are people in our line of sight ?

Agonising choices - no easy ways. Increase the quota of genuinely destitute and desperate people, ESPECIALLY if they will never be able to afford an air-fare.

Regards,

Joe

Loudmouth,

I get what you are saying, but being "destitute" does not qualify anyone for refugee status. In fact, war in ones' s country is not a reason to be considered a refugee. The Convention was originally designed for displaced Europeans after WW11.

The document signed by the leftist idiot, Bert Evatt, has been turned and twisted to suit the awful United Nations. Sadly, our awful politicians went along with it. No t a single one of the people who have arrived by boat, forcing themselves on us and living in relative luxury on
welfare provided by Austalians' taxes would qualify under the Refugee Convention that was actually signed by an Australian politician all those years ago.As I have said, it is a con arranged by the United Nations, and agreed to by gutless politicians more interested in how they are seen globally than they are in Australia and Australians

Dear McCackie,

<<I am proud that we no longer kill ongoing hundreds of people on the high seas>>

Are you confessing for murder?

I never killed anybody, anywhere, so please do not include me in this "we".
Thank you.

(and as for the people in question, to the best of my knowledge they were not murdered at all, but died by the elements of nature after recklessly setting sail on the high seas in unseaworthy boats)

ConservativeHippie

In the past Australia operated onshore processing and detention. The offshore option is far more expensive. In my view it was adopted for two reasons – to separate the detainees from media and activists, and to hold them in conditions so miserable they would cause outrage if they were imposed in Australia. This latter, as you say, is designed to discourage further boat arrivals. As Burnside says in the article Foxy linked to: “The theory is, apparently, that if we are cruel enough to people who have escaped persecution, others will prefer to stand and face their persecutors.” This is where Burnside, Toh, and many others, say is unconscionable in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

McCackie

Have you stopped to ask yourself why anyone would risk their life in a dangerous ocean crossing to reach Australia? It is surely because their existing lives are so threatened or oppressed that staying at home is even worse. Your argument is equivalent to barring the windows of a burning building, to protect the occupiers from breaking an ankle if they jump out.

Foxy

Thanks for the links – interesting.

Foxy
"Why can't we have a rational debate on the issue of asylum-seekers. Why does it have to be a choice of - "you're either with us or against us!"

We are having a rational debate, and what we're proving is, that people like the author, you, and Julian Burnside are fakes.

"After initial detention, they would be released into the community, with the right to work, Centrelink and Medicare benefits"

While ever you expect people who don't agree with you to be forced into paying the costs of your fake concern for refugees, of course your hypocritical policy provokes anger and heat. It's you who are forcing the choice of you're either with or against us, because you won't allow people to disagree with you. According to Burnsides policy, that you agree with, people will be FORCED to pay for your pretended values, whether they disagree or not.

But you yourself aren't willing to pay for those things voluntarily, are you?

If I am mistaken - how about you prove it.

Sign and post back into this thread the Deed and Declaration that I have posted above. Go ahead. Do it.

If you don't you're a fake. Your concern for refugees is fake. Burnside's concern is fake.

*Real* compassion means you're prepared to accept the costs of your own publicly protested values NOT that you try and force people who don't agree with you into paying.

The reason there is so much heat in the refugees debate is because of the blatantly false shameless moral pretentiousness of those talking down to everyone else about how morally superior and caring they are, when, in fact, they aren't. They're just conceited show-offs, crying to force others to pay the costs.

If you're not a fake, post the signed deed. If you don't, or if you make any other response, it means we're all agreed that you're a fake.

Okay? Fair enough?

Hi JKJ

Your Deed should include the economic benefits as well as the costs of more humane treatment of asylum seekers. This includes much lower expenses in creating and running detention facilities: the direct costs of the border management program is about $4 billion a year, most of which goes on detention, enforcement and payments to host countries:

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2015-16-pbs-full.pdf

Then there’s the indirect benefits: lower ongoing health and other costs, and higher taxes if they are allowed to work.

And perhaps we won't need our new Australian Border Force, costing $400m a year.

I’d happily sign up for a share of that.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

I stopped reading your post after the
sentence that you think the author, myself, and
Julian Burnside are fakes.

I don't think the asylum seeker issue is a fair test of the Australian character. People need facts to make decisions. The Australian people have had this severely limited due to an intense campaign designed to dehumanize refugees and mis-inform the population, which has lasted over a decade.

After 9/11, our fear of terrorism was heightened, and PM Howard exploited this by stating terrorists could be among the boat people. This was a ridiculous claim, as terrorists would never risk such a dangerous journey. He also made the false claim that refugees threw children overboard.

Then came more than a decade of journalists and politicians using the term "illegals" when referring to asylum seekers. Under the Refugee Convention, it is not illegal to seek asylum. By "criminalising" asylum seekers it is easier for decent, fair-minded Australians to accept the indefinite incarceration of refugees in detention centres. This framing of refugees as illegals means it is easier for the population to believe we need strong border protection to keep these criminal types out - Australians are proud to do our fair share to help real refugees, just not the "queue jumping" type - another eg of mis-information - there is no queue.

Then came the media black out of detention centres - limited access by journalists, lawyers and even politicians to detention centres. Information about refugees and the conditions under which they have been detained have been tightly controlled for many years. Recently it has intensified to the point where under the new Border Patrol policy, doctors and nurses face 2 years jail for speaking out about abuses in detention centres.

All this tells me that Australians only allow the mistreatment of refugees because we have been lied to and kept in the dark.

If the media and politicians stopped using the term illegals to describe asylum seekers and if there was greater transparency regarding detention centres I think Australians would be appalled . I think the Government knows this and that is why it is so determined to keep what happens in detention centres a closely guarded secret.

Murdering around 100000 unborn babies per year and promoting homosexuality by much of the media are two of the biggest blots on the character of our nation.

What does it say about us?

It says we are a bunch of weak kneed fool, who have allowed ourselves to be imposed upon & abused by some of the most disgusting people on earth.

It shows that too many people in Oz, particularly the bureaucrats & education elites have too little to do to earn their daily bread, & too much time to feel sorry for & be deceived by a sob story by these disgusting users.

Really is time for the silent majority to start shouting & get these bleeding hearts back in the box they crawled out of, before they do us even more harm.

Bjelly is correct in suggesting that if the Australian people weren't kept in the dark by this government re any asylum seeker matters, far more of them would be as alarmed as the rest of the World is with us.

This Government, and the Howard Government before them, have done a good job on spreading lies and promoting paranoia amongst gullible people in Australia re asylum seekers.
Have any of the asylum seekers committed acts of terrorism in Australia?
Have there been any acts of terrorism here since 9/11?

Blind Freddie should be able to see that Abbott uses terrorism as a tool to frighten Australia into thinking they need his big brave government to be in power to keep these nasty, sinful non-Christians from 'invading' our very shores.

Yet, if there is ever a 'terrorist attack' on our soil, Abbott would say "See, I told you so!", and all the gullible people will forget that he ever said he would keep them safe!

Suseonline,

As recently as mid-2014 Labor's Bob Carr, Foreign Minister of the Rudd government, was saying that allegations concerning 'asylum seekers' were 'urban mythology' ie lies, specifically the ill-treatment that is often the cow dung spread by the 'Watermelon' Greens and apologists for the people smuggling activities of the international gangs involved in people smuggling (along with their other nefarious pursuits. He was referring specifically to Sri Lankin economic migrants at the time. [The Guardian 9July2014]

When he was PM, Kevin Rudd, his Foreign Minister Bob Carr and other senior Labor figures agreed that the boat arrivals courtesy of the criminal travel agents were economic migrants who abused Australia's generosity and displaced real refugees.

So both sides of government disagree with you. -Even more so now as far as Labor is concerned.

What does Justin Toh's contempt for Australians say about his personnel character?

Justin seems to be another moral puritan with a compulsive psychological condition to think that he is better than the rest of the population. He needs to feel superior and let the rest of us know how disgusting we are. He lives in an academic world where the idea of social, moral, and intellectual superiority of the inhabitants is a common perception, and the need to express how wonderful and superior they are is endemic.

To do this, certain "causes" need to be selected as a defining characteristic for membership of this "superior" caste. Usually, this involves simply being "against" everything that everybody else is favour of. This clearly display's their difference from the herd. The trick is to take a worthy cause like refugees, and completely misrepresent the facts to make it look like most of the population is disgusting, while you and your friends (of course) come across as the guardians of everything that is good and holy.

Justin is a Christian, and he should have been a priest. But with churches increasingly empty, the moral puritans who once ruled the roosts on the church pulpits now use the media to tell the uninterested sinners how awful they are. Just read Justin's little speech again, you can almost hear the choir of heavenly angels singing behind him as he rails against the people who are just not interested in his stupid religion.

Reality check to Justin. Most Australians do not consider cashed up, country shopping boat people to be genuine refugees. Australians know that we have a refugee program in existence which is already generous and which has imported people into this country, too many of whom are hostile to the people that have given them succour. They know that we have a welfare system which will collapse if we simply allow millions of poor people from dysfunctional societies with dysfunctional cultures to self select into Australia. And we just get pissed off with people like yourself who just want to strut and preen.

I See Malcolm Turnbull is now saying we shouldn't overstate the threat of IS to Australia.
I have always said he should be the Liberal Leader. He is the only bright one amongst them.

Suse says:

"Bjelly is correct in suggesting that if the Australian people weren't kept in the dark by this government re any asylum seeker matters, far more of them would be as alarmed as the rest of the World is with us.

This Government, and the Howard Government before them, have done a good job on spreading lies and promoting paranoia amongst gullible people in Australia re asylum seekers.
Have any of the asylum seekers committed acts of terrorism in Australia?
Have there been any acts of terrorism here since 9/11?"

Suse, this issue didn't just arise and has nothing to do with the Government's operational secrecy. Most Australians have been against allowing boat people to come to Australia ever since your buddy Rudd effectively open the door. And contrary to your claim the rest of the world is alarmed with Australia's policy, the countries who face the same problem are starting to use similar methods.

Was Monis originally an asylum seeker? Oh, I just remembered you didn't agree that Monis committed an act of terrorism.

Have there been acts of terrorism here since 9/11? Thankfully do to the diligence of our security several incidents have been prevented. Or perhaps you think all that has been fabricated also.

Rhian

"I’d happily sign up for a share of that."

Go on then. Let's see you do it.

If everyone who says they care about asylum-seekers would sign up for the costs, that would solve the whole problem.

Foxy
If you're not a fake, prove it.

Hurry up and post the signed deed into this thread. Make sure you include your address for service of the writs.

The reason we can't have a rational discussion on this topic is because you're a fake.

Dear Jardine,

False labelling is no way to argue in any discussion.
You are simply baiting and stirring.
I'm not interested.

LOL Fox, Jardine K. Jardine has got you there.

Many are still asking, to no avail of course, why the very well resourced (courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer) Greens such as Bob Brown, SHY and Larissa Waters (the one with the expensive roof garden* paid for by the taxpayer) have never taken any of the previous boat arrivals into their homes.

*<Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters spent $414,000 on fitout for Paddington office
RENEE VIELLARIS, MATTHEW KILLORAN THE COURIER-MAIL APRIL 19, 2014

GREENS Senator Larissa Waters spent a whopping $414,000 to fit out her trendy Paddington office – more than any of her Queensland political colleagues at the time.

The office, on the top floor of a pristine-condition, split-level building on Given Tce, includes a rooftop patio with timber outdoor furniture and artificial turf.>
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-greens-senator-larissa-waters-spent-414000-on-fitout-for-paddington-office/story-fnihsrf2-1226889449998

Larissa could have some of those boat arrivals in that luxury accommodation, complete with the turf and outdoor entertainment mod cons.

These boat arrivals,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Conservative Hippie, Rudd has never been, and never will be a buddy to me....I can't stand the man, or his politics.

Be careful what you say about the possibility of there being terrorist activities on our shores, as if there is ever an incident here, you will be seen to blame this Government for not continuing to keep you safe.

Monis was a political refugee granted asylum here in 1997. He came in legally by plane.
So, still no boat people terrorists have struck in Australia as far as I know.

Okay, let's take it slowly, step by step:

* suppose whoever arrives by boat is 'treated humanely', screened for economic migrants, and if found to be genuine refugees, given a de facto place in that queue, and settled in Australia, with all the benefits accruing to genuine refugees;

* if this is so, a question arises: why not simply fly people direct ? Why put them through the process of having to pay exorbitant fees and get on a leaky boat ?

Yonks ago, I enjoyed a cartoon on TV of a rabbit or coyote or some sort of Joker, in a jail cell; he checks that there's nobody around, comes out of his cell and draws a door on the wall, then goes back inside and opens the door and comes out, and escapes.

Why, one obviously wonders, why not just escape ? Why the necessity for a door ?

Similarly, why the stage of payment to smugglers and getting on leaky boats ? If they are going to be welcomed anyway, then why not just fly direct ?

Seriously.

I think you all know where this is heading .......

Suse, I didn't say Monis was off a boat. He was however an asylum seeker that went bad.

You said "Have any of the asylum seekers committed acts of terrorism in Australia?" So the answer is YES!

Foxy

"I'm not interested."

You're not interested in refugees. You're just interested in your conceited public self-preening about how wonderful and caring you are.

All fake, as we've just seen.

Justine
Could you please post the signed scanned original PDF of the Deed and Declaration? It's to settle a bet. My friend is arguing that you're a nasty hypocrite, and I'm arguing that you're not, and I can prove it.

Hurry up?

Loudmouth

If “offshore processing” meant just that, as it did in the 1980s when Vietnamese refugees were “processed” offshore and then flown here for resettlement, then I’d agree. But “processing” is now also a euphemism for indefinite detention without trial, not just the bureaucratic processes necessary to establish someone’s security and refugee status.

JKJ

Why is coercing taxpayers to support community settlement of refugees a bad thing, but coercing them to pay for offshore detention acceptable? As the fiscal burden of our current treatment of asylum seekers is far greater than the one I propose, then by your logic I should be entitled to a tax rebate if my proposals are adopted.

On a more serious note, studies have shown that community hostility to illegal immigration is higher in countries with comparatively high welfare safety nets – the Americans, for example, are comparatively relaxed about illegal migration, but allow them few government benefits (illegal migration is not the same issue as asylum seekers, but there are parallels). Would you support allowing asylum seekers' entry if they had no access to housing or unemployment benefits? There are already organisations that provide community support for refugees in that situation in Australia using voluntary donations.

Suseonline

I think both major parties are equally at fault here. Labor introduced mandatory detention. Howard moved much of it offshore. Rudd and Gillard embraced this and took thinks to a new low by detaining refugees in countries not signatory to the UN convention. Abbott continues the race to the bottom.

Hi Rhian,

I'l take it even more slowly then.

You don't approve of either 'stopping the boats' or offshore detention, in Cambodia or Manus or Nauru ?

Fair enough.

So let's take those dreadful processes out of the equation:

* boats shouldn't be stopped, and

* people should be processed humanely on-shore, and if genuine, quickly moved into the community with all the benefits they are entitled to.

Is that your position ?

Then, I'll ask again: why expect people to go through the process of paying high fares and traveling here by leaky boat ? Since the boats shouldn't be stopped, why should so many people have to get here that way ? Why not just let people pay a standard fare to Qantas to fly here, process them here and take them into the community ?

If people don't have to get on a boat in Indonesia, then why not - seriously - let people fly direct from wherever they are, as long as they are genuine refugees ?

What could be so hard about that ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

<<Similarly, why the stage of payment to smugglers and getting on leaky boats ? If they are going to be welcomed anyway, then why not just fly direct ?>>

Then ask further - who cares how they arrive? What's wrong if their method of transportation happens to be a boat? Perhaps they don't fly because they are environmentalists who refuse to burn carbon?

The rabbit was not welcome outside his jail cell - he simply came out and having already been out, I think he should pay for the damage he caused to his cell by unnecessarily drawing a door. Similarly none of us is obliged to welcome those who arrive in Australia, yet there are many shades of grey between "welcoming" and actively preventing people from arriving - and those are somehow ignored here in what turned out to be a black&white discussion.

Hi Joe

We have no legal or moral obligation to take everyone in the world who may qualify as a refugee, though were have a moral obligation to take some – as we do. We do have particular legal (and I believe, moral) obligations to people who arrive here and claim refugee status. So offshore processing alone is never going to be sufficient to prevent people taking risky boat trips, even in the unlikely event that Australia agreed to accept any and all genuine refugees.

Yututsu’s points are right: there is no basis for the different treatment of plane and boat arrivals, and a plethora of options between open borders and indefinite offshore detention.

Rhian
"Why is coercing taxpayers to support community settlement of refugees a bad thing, but coercing them to pay for offshore detention acceptable?"

I don't think it is. I think the whole subject is a great example of government provoking unnecessary stinking conflict in society, then intervening and aggrandising the power and budgets of its own functionaries in the process.

"As the fiscal burden of our current treatment of asylum seekers is far greater than the one I propose, then by your logic I should be entitled to a tax rebate if my proposals are adopted."

Certainly if policy enabled those who volunteered, to pay the costs of the refugees themselves and not impose them on others, they could work out how to provide a decent process at a fraction of what it now costs, and the savings, like the costs, should be all their own.

The problem is precisely that the 'dominant paradigm' - the current framework of the Convention and immigration policy funded by tax - spreads calculational and valuational and moral chaos throughout the whole subject area. It's not hard to figure out how to save money and improve government performance - but good luck trying to get a tax rebate.

That's the whole point. While ever people can shuck off the costs of their pretensions to compassion, onto others who are forced to pay even though they disagree, we will continue to have more humane and economical solutions going begging.

The whole problem would be solved by a change so that those who want to bear the costs, can, and those who don't, don't have to.

"... studies have shown that community hostility to illegal immigration is higher in countries with comparatively high welfare safety nets ..."

Yes indeed. If the ostentatious self-preening fakes like Justine, Foxy, and Burnside would stop using the state force to others to pay for the costs of their pretended values, you'd find the whole issue doesn't exist.

So anyway, are you going to sign and post the Deed, or not?

Hi Rhian,

So, IF

(1) the government was able to stop the flow of boats dead in the water so to speak,

THEN

there would be no more off-shore detention. Isn't that so ?

AND IF

(2) the government increased the annual quota of genuine refugees from the current 14,000 to, say, 25,000,

THEN

an increased quota could be easily filled each year by people who have applied in the proper way and waited their turn, in their ghastly hell-holes.

Well, the news seems to be that the Government has successfully accomplished (1). Now we can turn our attention to (2).

Cheers,

Joe

Conservative Hippie, I never thought you worried much about 'legal' asylum seekers who arrive here by plane, so I didn't count Monis as one of your dreaded 'boat people'.

The jury is still out on whether Monis fits the definition that most people have of a terrorist, unless you also want to call all proven mentally unstable people who murder someone as terrorists?

If that were the case, then we would certainly have many terrorists in Australia.
Mind you, not all people who murder others are mentally unstable of course.
But hey, you know best, right?

Hi Joe

If the government stopped all the boats – let’s say they built a massive wall around Australia – then maybe we’d need no offshore detention. Or, maybe the government would decide to detain asylum seekers arriving by plane overseas or terrorism suspects overseas. Or perhaps they’d transport the new wave of people arriving by abseil. Who knows? Scapegoats are useful.

A large part of the issue is HOW government stops the boats. Using the deterrence of indefinite detention in miserable conditions with inadequate governance, with no prospect of resettlement regardless of whether a person is a genuine refugee, seems to me excessively harsh. The means matter, as well as the end.

The only link between the number of refugees we take from authorised channels and those who arrive and claim asylum is one the Government has invented, to create an artificial conflict between “legal” and “illegal” arrivals.

Talk to actual refugees. In most cases, there is no queue in which people can “wait their turn”.

Hi JKJ

If the problem is the dominant paradigm, what would your alternative paradigm look like? How would you would tackle the issue without either offshore detention or community settlement burdening the taxpayer? A truly libertarian position would surely be one of completely open borders to refugees (and anyone else) but zero taxpayer support and “user pays” for services used, with citizens free to make charitable donations to assist refugees if they wish.

Also, do you accept that, within the “dominant paradigm”, the humane option is the less onerous on taxpayers and therefore preferable to the current system by your criteria? If so, and if you are willing to make the amendments to your Deed that I have suggested, I’d be happy to sign it.

Hi Rhian,

I think the point is: that the Government may have already stopped the boats: paying the crews to take them back may have worked - it's an ironic version of what they call in Economics 101 'the tragedy of the commons'.

I suppose we need to be very explicit: some people seem to think that, if crews are paid to turn the boats around, that there will be big mobs of boats heading towards Australia. No:

If the boats' crews are consistently paid off, and people who have paid big money, end up back in Indonesia, the word will get out pretty quick: for Christ's sake, don't waste you money. You'll be back here quick-smart, bare-arsed and broke.

The smuggling trade dries up: No more customers. No more boats.

No more back-handers to police and local authorities. The trade in 'refugees' and migrants in Indonesia dries up.

People stay back in their home countries, except for genuine refugees, for whom that means death.

Isn't that obvious ?

Suse,

" .... all proven mentally unstable people who murder someone .... " and wave an ISIS flag around, and shoot somebody shouting 'Allah Akbar', may be nothing more than common or garden psychotic supporters of terrorism. But being a psychopath and supporting terrorism are not mutually exclusive :)

After all, isn't it possible that many, if not most, if not all, ISIS terrorists are psychopaths ?

Joe

Hi Joe

I suspect the harshness of our policies rather than paying off people smugglers is the main cause of the drop in boat arrivals.

If it can be made to work, paying boats to turn back is a more humane way to stop the boats than the deterrence of detention.

Apart from a certain squeamishness about paying off criminals, I can foresee a few possible problems, though.

What is to stop the boat owners and their passengers merely returning then setting out again some other day?

It could start an auction in which boat smugglers raise fee to exceed government payoffs. The people smugglers might try to exploit both markets – accepting payoffs when caught, but landing passengers if not. If the payoffs are significantly more than the fees for people smuggling, it might actually add to the incentive to smuggle people. Unless the Government paid off every owner of a suitable boat in Indonesia, there would still be some boat owner with an economic incentive to carry refugees. And even if they did, refugees might set out from different countries in the region. Paying these off too could be even more expensive.

Still, creative alternatives are worth exploring.

Meanwhile, I suppose, the genuine refugees, for whom staying home means death, are someone else’s problem.

In answer to the original question. That Australians don't have much regard for those we consider cheats. That when confronted with those we think are playing the system we will go hard to try and stop them prospering from that.

Some assumptions/views on the broader topic
- Many arriving by boat arrive without valid identity documents but apparently managed to keep hold of enough funds to pay a hefty fee to the people smugglers
- Many arriving as asylum seekers are fleeing highly dysfunctional countries and cultures yet wish to cling to many of the same cultural/religious beliefs that played a major part in making their own countries such hell holes
- That the situation in Australia both in regard to opportunities for employment and the scale of our welfare system is vastly different to that which existed when the majority of the conventions covering asylum seekers were drawn up
- There may may not be a queue that's viably accessible to people who remain in camps close to their country of origin.
- Systems are in place that make it very difficult to board a plane to Australia then claim asylum.

R0bert

Loudmouth, I would suggest that, like many violent groups, some in ISIS will be mad, but most will just be bad.

The fact remains that they are unlikely to come here via leaky boats, if they might die, when their prime objective is supposed to include being terrorists in our country!

Would you agree that if they were boatloads of white Africans fleeing persecution by Mugabe for instance, that were landing on our shores because he wouldn't give them a passport to leave by plane for example, that Australia would treat that situation a lot differently?

This asylum seeker fear and hatred is fuelled by racism and fear of non-Christian 'invaders'. That is essentially what Abbott and his band of fear-inspiring colleagues have managed to spread in this country.

NEWS FLASH

I know that I am going off topic, but for all of my friends, I make an important announcement.

Mark Steyn is being sued for libel by one of the originators of the "climate change" nonsense and he is supremely confident that he will win the case. He is apparently being backed by some of the world's miost eminent scientists who are incensed that a bunch of loony lefties and Susieonline clones have hijacked science for political ends.

Interestingly for Susie and her friends, on Mark Steyn's podium is a psychologist who accurately explains how people like Susie thing ( or don't think).

For those of you who are the real intelligent ones, here is Mark Steyn at his absolute best and funniest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

Great video LEGO; very funny! cheers

Rhian
"A truly libertarian position would surely be one of completely open borders to refugees (and anyone else) but zero taxpayer support and “user pays” for services used, with citizens free to make charitable donations to assist refugees if they wish."

Yes, however remember that a truly libertarian scenario would mean that all social relations are based on liberty and property and the need to get people's consent if you want to use their labour or their property. So to approximate that, it means that those who support refugees would need to cover the costs not just of refugee processing, but all the other state-funded services that the refugees would consume. Plus they would need to provide indemnity against refugees' crimes and torts.

"If the problem is the dominant paradigm, what would your alternative paradigm look like? How would you would tackle the issue without either offshore detention or community settlement burdening the taxpayer?"

By the draft Deed that I have posted above. It internalises all those costs to the relevant people.

"Also, do you accept that, within the “dominant paradigm”, the humane option is the less onerous on taxpayers and therefore preferable to the current system by your criteria?"

I'm not sure. The devil's in the details. The Manus Island policy may prove cheaper if it reduces incoming boats, and therefore detentions, which it appears to have done, not to mention reducing drownings at sea.

"If so, and if you are willing to make the amendments to your Deed that I have suggested, I’d be happy to sign it."

Oh good. What amendments would you like? Feel free to change it as you please, and let's have a look at it. I reckon this could a goer. I'm sure Jill, Julian, Foxy, all Labor and Greens supporters, the churches, and many others are itching to sign.

I've spent literally years of my life doing volunteer work for refugees, so unlike the posers, I'm fair dinkum and I'm in credit.

RObert, your post proves my point, decent Australians have been told ad infinitum over the last decade, by politicians and the media that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants, cheats and queue jumpers.

We have been mis-informed by people we trust. It is pure propaganda - I know this is an unpopular term, but I don't know a better one to describe the way the truth has been twisted and turned on its head. How is this possible? It is possible only with a compliant media.

For those interested in finding out more about the use of propaganda please look up Edward Bernays, "Propaganda"
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Edward Bernays (1891–1995), pioneered the scientific technique of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which he famously dubbed “engineering of consent.”
http://www.amazon.com.au/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays-ebook/dp/B0097D76MG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436402617&sr=8-1&keywords=propaganda

Australians have been subjected to an concerted propaganda campaign in order to manufacture our consent to the increasingly punitive treatment of innocent asylum seekers - who flee real persecution, risking their lives to us ask for protection.

Under the Refugee Convention, refugees have the legal right to come to Australia by boat and ask us for asylum without authorisation.

Refugees by definition are being persecuted by their government - think for a moment, how would you go about getting a passport from a government that is actively persecuting you? Often we don't have embassies in these countries. We make allowances for refugees as it is recognized that it is not practical or even safe for refugees to all the normal travel documents on their arrival.

Without this propaganda campaign there is no way ordinary Australians would accept people, including families and children, fleeing torture and murder being locked up indefinitely in squalor on in privately run detention camps on remote islands under great secrecy and at huge expense - around $100,000 a year per detainee!

Dear BJelly,

<<Australians have been subjected to an concerted propaganda campaign in order to manufacture our consent to the increasingly punitive treatment of innocent asylum seekers>>

But why would they do it? Why do they want our consent? They do whatever they like anyway in all areas of life, simply because they can - they have the guns, they have the prisons, the dogs, tasers, helicopters, everything to enforce their will, so it looks so silly that they would seek us to agree.

<<Under the Refugee Convention, refugees have the legal right to come to Australia by boat and ask us for asylum without authorisation.>>

That convention is the very cause of their evil treatment of refugees: it requires the government not only to accept refugees, but also to pay their living expenses. Had it not costed them the money, they would not have bothered to stop the refugees, nor would that many people want to arrive in Australia anyway.

That same harmful convention forces the classification of people in black and white terms - either one is a refugee, according to some strict technical criteria, or they are not, nothing in between.

Those who love and care for others, would do so with or without a convention. Those who don't will always find ways to avoid following even those obligations they signed for.

bjbelly

What Yuyutsu said.

Australia has the capacity to accept all the refugees it wants, without the Convention.

The Convention just results in cases being determined not on merit or urgency, but on the seaworthiness of the applicant.

If all the people who claim to care about refugees, genuinely cared about them, they would offer to relieve their fellow Australians of the costs, and there would be no issue. You could have all the refugees you want.

So why don't you? All you have to do is print out the above Deed and Declaration, sign it, and post the signed original in PDF back into this thread. Then we'll know you're fair dinkum.

Go ahead. Prove you're not a fake.

Rhian
bjbelly's post is an example of the evaluational chaos - not to mention the nauseating pretentiousness - enabled by the socialisation of the resources in issue.

Instead of discussion being focussed on the real issues, we get these fake discussions about diversions. (Notice that bjbelly assumes that anyone who disagrees with him suffers from "manufactured" political opinion, whereas his own political opinion is not manufactured, it's the real deal, he is a prophet speaking absolute truth, he's got a telephone to God. Nauseating. And so dumb.)

These insufferable Puritan know-it-alls are what's causing the entire problem, because they're the ones who wanted the Convention in the first place, so they could pose in their cafes about how caring they are, while shafting everyone else in the population for the costs.

Hi JKJ

I have also worked with refugees, and regularly donate to organisations that assist them – so I do put my money (and time) where my mouth is.

The Deed in its current form would not be tenable.

I’d happily sign this though:

I agree to pay, or receive payment for, the net fiscal impact of transferring a refugee family from detention into the Australian community.

This includes the cost 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, equipment, travel, accommodation, 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

Less the costs that would have been incurred under the current policy, including:

• Health and identity checks
• Accommodation, food, health, mental health, sport, recreation, training during detention
• The costs of determination of refugee status, including all reviews administrative and judicial
• The costs of administration, including all premises, equipment, travel, accommodation, staff, salaries, tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday leave, flex leave, long service leave, maternity leave, study leave
• The costs of detention, including salaries, other operating costs, capital expenses, maintenance and depreciation
• The costs of “resettlement” in a foreign country once refugee status is determined
• The costs of payments and donations in kind to host countries made in return for hosting refugees

Less other fiscal contributions, including the value of any income tax, GST and other taxation paid by the family in Australia.

The Commission of Audit estimated it costs $400,000 a year to keep a person in offshore detention, and $40,000 a year to settle them in the community.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/law/commission-audit-reveals-offshore-processing-budget-blowout

Assuming a family of four, $1,440,000+ a year sounds a good deal. I reckon a few other people would sign up, too.

Rhian, the bit that's missing from your proposal is the numbers involved.

As I see it the main purpose of the current policy (like it or not) is to deter many who would otherwise come here. Comparing the cost of a single person or family in detention to the cost of that same person or family in the community does not deal with the expected significant increase in numbers if access was easier.

It's not a real answer unless you have a proposal that addresses that aspect.

R0bert

R0bert, your point is valid, but to establish numbers with or without the policy is impossible. Furthermore, it would depend on the level of take-up of people willing to sign similar Deeds.

An economist could hypothesise that the supply of refugees would settle at a level that equilibriates the market – presumably where the estimated cost of community settlement and offshore detention is roughly the same, perhaps with a discount to reflect the preferences of people like me who would rather they we settled in the community. We could even, in the interests of an entirely free market/voluntarist solution that JKJ might approve of, introduce a deed with exactly the opposite commitments, allowing those who prefer refugees to be held in offshore detention to bid to underwrite the net costs of that arrangement. This could be the perfect free-market solution – each person (except the refugees, obviously) freely chooses whether to support detention or community settlement at the prevailing price, the government needn’t pay for either as the market clears automatically, and the market also determines supply according to cost and the prevailing balance of incarcerators/liberators. It should even be possible to establish derivatives and futures markets so prospective refugees can determine the best time to get on a boat. But that might be a little extreme.

Hi Yuyustu,

I don't know why they do it. All I know is that most people believe what they have been told repeatedly by politicians and the media for over a decade, that Asylum seekers are illegal migrants and queue jumpers. This is simply not true. The mis-information has allowed an otherwise generous and fair-minded people to lock up and detain innocent people for years - the only way it could be justified to us was to label them illegals. It doesn't have to be this way as was shown by the humane way the Fraser government dealt with the Vietnamese boat people - at a time when we were not such a wealthy country, and yet far more humane and generous.

I agree the Refugee Convention is arbitrary and leaves out many people who need assistance.

"Those who love and care for others, would do so with or without a convention. Those who don't will always find ways to avoid following even those obligations they signed for." I totally agree.

JKJ,
You assume too much. I'm as gullible as the next person. I am no better or worse than anyone else. I want to increase my understanding of how the world works. One thing I do know is that governments of all persuasions spend a lot of money on spin doctors and public relations - they are there solely to massage the truth, and teach politicians the art of omission and misdirection - to engineer or manufacture consent.

I work with disadvantaged kids and do my bit to help those in need when I can. I don't need to sign a deed. I would just like my government to stop lying and do the right thing by vulnerable people by simply abiding by its commitments under the Refugee Convention - nothing more or less.

Finding out about how propaganda works has improved my understanding of how the world works, and I thought that others may be interested in finding out more about it too.

Edward Bernays knew what he was talking about as he was an influential public relations man - he was the one who promoted it's use over the term "propaganda" which took on negative connotations after WW1. He was involved in a variety of commercial and government related PR campaigns from promoting bacon and soap, through to the propaganda campaign in support of the overthrow of the democratically elected Guatamalan government on behalf of United Fruit Company - sounds crazy - but absolutely true.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2010/12/9834/banana-republic-once-again

We are all subject to propaganda. Sometimes we can see it, sometimes we are blind to it. But to pretend it doesn't happen is foolish and naive.

As Mark Twain once said - if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Rhian

If it costs $100 per refugee under your proposal, and, say $4,000 now, that means, according to your proposal, you get paid $3,900.

Neat.

Rhian,

An economist would suggest, from the point of view of consumer satisfaction, that the consumer of a service must get something out of it to get satisfaction, in order to be willing to repeat the transaction.

The point surely about boat-people is that they come once, not again and again. If they don't get satisfaction the first time - i.e. they arrive, not at their paid-for destination, but back at the hotel - then they won't repeat the process. And they'll pass the word around.

Paying crews to take people back may have that sort of effect. Paying the crews means the death of the smuggling business.

It means effectively 'stopping the boats'.

Now we can focus on increasing the annual quota of genuine refugees, without any perturbation caused by queue-jumpers with money. We can focus on refugees without money.

You know, - the out-of-sight refugees, in Turkey, Kenya, Jordan, Egypt, Tanzania - the people who will never have enough to get on a boat.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi JKJ
Yep, that’s my point. Except you can multiply those numbers by about 1000!

Hi Joe
I agree that diminishing the chances of getting though might affect the decision to try, or try again. But I’m not sure that failing to get through once would be enough to deter refugees from trying to get through again. Many are persistent and resourceful. Even the risk of drowning doesn’t deter them, and I guess the same grapevine you describe means they are well aware than some boats don’t get through.

cheers

The AHRC has a link to some numbers that might be relevant to the discussion

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-statistics

As at 31 May 2015 there were: 2,026 people in immigration detention facilities, and 1,598 people in community detention in Australia

Looking back a bit
http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/immigration-detention-statistics-20130131.pdf

As at: 31 January 2013 There were 5697 people in immigration detention facilities and alternative places of detention, including 4526 in immigration detention on the mainland and 1135 in immigration detention on Christmas Island as at 31 January 2013.
Separately, 2178 people have been approved for a residence determination to live in the community.

I assume statistics for other periods are available with some more digging.

R0bert

Dear Rhian,

But why not receive the whole $1,600,000 rather than $1,440,000?

Birds who fly over the ocean and fish who swim here do not receive a cent! - What then, other than the refugee convention, forces the Australian tax-payer to provide arrivals with even $40,000/person?

The cheapest way, which perhaps just hasn't crossed your mind, is to simply ignore them who arrive - let those who set sail sail, let those who drown drown, let those who manage it ashore come ashore, let those who starve after landing die, let those who find Australia inhospitable leave or swim away, let those who wish to support them support them, let those who like a human pet tie a collar around their neck and keep the on leash, let those who want to save fuel ride their back, let those who wish to eat them cook them for dinner then hang their bones in school for the study of anatomy, etc.

It's only the united-nations and its refugee-convention that require that anyone who arrives must be treated as a human, thus refugees are worse-off because the government prevents them from coming even in their capacity of animals.

Why should it be the government's business in the first place? It's all about that bigoted and sick idea of "sovereignty" which we pay for dearly.

---

Dear Bjelly,

<<All I know is that most people believe what they have been told repeatedly by politicians and the media for over a decade>>

Well I never listen to either. Why would anyone? My good education tells me that when the devil speaks one should fill their ears with wax.

<<I would just like my government to stop lying and do the right thing by vulnerable people by simply abiding by its commitments under the Refugee Convention - nothing more or less.>>

But abiding with the Refugee Convention is not the right thing! It's what started this cruelty rolling on to begin with.

Off topic again, in answer to LEGO's accusations above, I realise my views are almost always opposite to yours on most issues LEGO, but climate change is not one of them.

I am not that interested in that topic, and rarely say much about it, so run along and annoy someone else for a change...

Rhian

"Yep, that’s my point."

Your point being what exactly?

Hi JKJ

Several points, I suppose:

- the cost of treating asylum seekers badly is probably much higher than treating them well.
- if you want people to own the negative consequences of the things they advocate, you should also allow them to share the benefits
- not everyone who advocates a different approach to asylum seekers is grandstanding or making vacuous claims on other people’s tax dollars

And, in a tongue-in-cheek way, to show that a libertarian/non-coercive/free market solution to the problem is not a straightforward as we might think (though I think Yuyistu comes close with the open borders + no government support model).

And Yuyistu
Yes it has crossed my mind, which is why I made the point earlier about the link between the USA having more tolerance for illegal immigration and less government support for migrants than other developed economies.

I don’t think open borders would gain traction here, because the negative flow-on effects to the existing population and to the environment could be large and hard to manage.

Then there is hope for you yet, Susieonline. Turn away from the Dark Side and return to your people.

Hi Rhian,

Hasn't it occurred to you yet that the policy of paying off boat crews may have stopped the boats for good ? Stopped dead.

No more boats.

No more boat-people.

No more people paying smugglers for nothing.

So, wait for reports of would-be refugees leaving Indonesia for their home countries.

Right, so now we can get back to the issues of bringing genuine refugees here direct from those dreadful camps, people who have done all the right things, filled out the forms, and waited.

Ten years.

Fifteen years.

Twenty years.

Ghastly, but at least, with no more queue-jumpers: they now have a chance.

With sixty million refugees around the world now, what do you think is a reasonable number of genuine refugees settling in Australia each year ? Twenty thousand ? Fifty thousand ? A hundred thousand ?

Hard choices :(

Joe

Loudmouth, you know as well as I do that most of the usual suspects on this forum don't want ANY of the asylum seekers we are discussing coming either on the boats, or from the refugee camps.
Why? Because they are non-white and non-Christian.

We really have no idea whether the boats have actually stopped setting out for Australia or not, do we? This Government won't tell us.

How many boatloads of refugee men, women and children do you think it is ok to turn back out to sea, to either die at sea, or be persecuted or killed back at their homelands?

Is it ok to allow them to die if we believe they are 'economic refugees' rather than 'genuine refugees'?

How many do we deliberately allow to die for the greater good of not having 'too many' come to try for asylum in Australia?

No one is suggesting we have an open door policy for all and sundry to immigrate here, but we should not be sending people to their death.
We should process them as per any asylum seeker arrival.

If we don't, are we any better than the terrorist governments etc that they are fleeing from?

Susie
'Loudmouth, you know as well as I do that most of the usual suspects on this forum don't want ANY of the asylum seekers we are discussing coming either on the boats, or from the refugee camps.
Why? Because they are non-white and non-Christian.'

as one of the resident Christophobes Susie you show as usual you have no idea.

Suse, its seems you just don't get it.

If people are trying to access Australia via an illegal people smuggler departing Indonesian shores, they are not fleeing for the lives. Returning these people back to Indonesia is not "... turn(ing) back out to sea, to either die at sea, or be persecuted or killed back at their homelands?"

No matter how bad you believe the policy is, our Navy personnel are not so cold hearted they would purposely jeopardise the lives of the boat people they are turning back. And if in the process of returning boats to Indonesia or simply turning them around, any boat sank and/or women and children died, someone within our Navy (a witness) would leek the story to the press. Members of the Navy are also everyday citizens of Australia, some will support the Coalition and some Labor or even the Greens. They serve the country, but they are still human and capable of seeing right from wrong, and knowing if a crime or atrocity has been committed. There would be at least one person on every vessel that would spill the beans if there was a tragic story the Government was trying to hide.

Please give more credit to the men and women of our Navy rather than bashing them via false and totally unsubstantiated accusations. Poirot, if you read this, it goes for you also.

Dear Suse,

<<If we don't, are we any better than the terrorist governments etc that they are fleeing from?>>

First, who are those "we"? Am I included? Do you suggest that I am no better than terrorist governments? Are you too?

Now you write: "If we don't": if we don't do what? From the context it seems that you meant "If we don't process them", but assuming so, am I obliged to process anyone and why? Are you suggesting that I or you or anybody else becomes a monster comparable with terrorist governments simply for their passive non-action, just getting on with their life?

Another point, you wrote: "No one is suggesting we have an open door policy for all and sundry to immigrate here":

Indeed I did not suggest that all and sundry should be able to immigrate, because I differentiate between migration and immigration, the former being natural, the latter artificial: almost all and sundry should not be prevented from migrating to the continent of Australia (apart from those who pose health/character/terrorist risks) - but that does not entitle anyone to immigrate and become a recognised member of Australian society. When someone migrates without immigrating, they should still be treated at least as well as animals who do the same - why treat humans worse than animals?

Runner, as usual, has nothing much to say other than an unrelated retort.

Hippie, I doubt many people would attempt a boat crossing where it has been well publicized by our Govt that many people (thousands?) have drowned before, if they weren't pretty desperate?

Our navy personnel do as they are told by this Govt. I doubt they escort the turned back vessels all the way back to land, do you?
So how would they know if the boats don't sink with all on board?
How would anyone alert any authorities if the boat sinks with all on board?

In fact how could either of us, or anyone else, know any of the things we have suggested are true or not, given that this Govt are playing secret squirrels business with the electorate?

Yuyutsu, you really aren't making any sense, or you are just trying to be annoying by pretending you don't know what I was trying to say.....

Suse, get real. If a boat sank with all lives lost, there would be relatives raising the question, 'what has happened to my family who boarded that boat?' The smuggler captain and crew of the boat would have family even if none of the passengers did, so an alert of a missing boat would eventually be raised. No such question has been raised to date, so no boats are missing.

And before you try to say, the secrecy of this government has prevented the possibility of missing boats making it into our media; nothing is stopping the Indonesians from alerting our media or even CNN, if something like what you are Poirot suspect has already happened. If the Indonesian government believed the Australian government or navy was complacent in the sinking/drowning of boat people, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be all over the news.

Don't cling to theories you are making up on the trot after they are debunked; it's a fruitless waste of time.

I do agree with your comments to Yuyutsu.

Rhian
"not everyone who advocates a different approach to asylum seekers is grandstanding or making vacuous claims on other people’s tax dollars"

But you are. You're still claiming
a) that your scenario is morally superior and
b) that everyone who doesn't agree with you should still be forced to pay the same amount regardless. The cost for them would be exactly the same.

So it’s a completely fake, facile, flippant proposal.

"if you want people to own the negative consequences of the things they advocate, you should also allow them to share the benefits"

You have completely failed to distinguish between their own property, and other people's taken under compulsion. All you've done is say you're willing to pay, on condition a) you don't have to pay, and b) the same amount is still taken from those who object, and this time paid to you!

As to the pragmatics, you also haven’t taken into account that offshore detention has stopped the boats, and so the cost is probably less, not probably greater. This fact invalidates your entire line of reasoning.

You haven’t addressed any of the issues at all. All you’ve done is demonstrate that you feel entitled to a big government handout *as well as* forcing people who don’t agree with you into paying for your pretended values.

"though I think Yuyistu comes close with the open borders + no government support model"

You have demonstrated no problem with a voluntary solution whatsoever. All you’ve demonstrated is that you are a hypocrite, just as fake as Justine, Foxy, and Burnside, and feel even more self-entitled based on nothing.

In these circumstances you have no valid reason why you should not either sign and post into this thread the Deed in its original form; or why asylum-seekers should not be locked up on Manus Island, since it is only your own callous hard-hearted selfishness (to quote Justine) that is preventing them being free in Australia and living at the standards you proclaim they should be living at.

Fake

Hi Suse,

Yes, you may be right, in the absence of any evidence one way or the other: boats may be being paid to go back, but it's all a trick: they are deliberately sunk, and thousands may be dying - but why stop there ?

How do we know that Abbott isn't seizing many of those thousands, bringing them to Western Australia to a secret torture centre, buried underground to avoid detection, where ghastly experiments are being performed on them ? And their body parts are being sold even today through the Chinese market ? And the rest of their remains are being made into dog food ?

OR the boat crews are paid to take their human cargoes back to Indonesia, where they pass the word on that it's all futile, don't waste your money, so people pack up and go back to their first point of exit from their home countries ?

Anything is possible when you don't need evidence :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe

Yes, the numbers are declining, but whether due to paying the boats to turn around or the threat of indefinite detention is hard to tell.

If Australia accepts a few thousand more authorised arrivals each year, I doubt it is going to make much difference to the waiting time for refugees. There are 14 million of them.

http://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html

Hi JKJ

My suggestion of receiving a large government handout was tongue-in-cheek, intended to illustrate that you had taken account only of part of the relevant costs.

I haven’t actually objected to a voluntary solution. I can see merit in it in principle, but large problems in practice. Indeed, in an earlier post I asked if you would support allowing asylum seekers entry if they had no access to housing or unemployment benefits. You did not reply.

Perhaps one day we will move to an entirely libertarian arrangement such as Yuyutsu describes, with borders open to any and all migrants, but no government support for their income, housing, education etc. Or one where we pay little or no tax and make our own decisions on where to spend the money we earn.

But I don’t think the Australian electorate will be up for that any time soon.

Until then …. all the plausible options entail government funding using what you call property taken under compulsion - tax dollars. Government will tax us to pay for their policies, and will decide where refugees will go - whether offshore detention and border “protection”, onshore detention, or community settlement.

It is no more coercive or deplorable that you might have to pay taxes to support refugee settlement in the community, than it is for me to have to pay taxes to keep them locked up on Manus. If you were consistent, you would surely direct as much ire at the people who want to spend your taxes on offshore detention as at those who want to spend your taxes on community settlement

Hi Rhoian,

Sixty million, at last count. Four million now from Syria alone.

What might one expect if the pay-off of crews is working, if no boats are getting through ? I suggest that, since there would be no point in staying in Indonesia any more, apart from the beauty of the people and the place, one consequence will be (or already is) reports of would-be migrants moving back to their home-regions, not necessarily their home-countries but nearer to their home-countries than Indonesia. i.e. when reporters report that the usual sorts of foreigners are no longer booking hotels, etc.

We'll see :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

You have a vivid imagination, or you watch too many horror stories!

If the smugglers were paid to take their refugees back to land, why wouldn't they then rustle up another cargo of fee-paying refugees and run them all back out onto the high seas to meet another Aussie ship, who will pay them again to take that lot back to land?
That's what I would do, how about you?

Hippie, I wouldn't put it past this Govt to hide any and everything regarding asylum seekers.
Remember, they have asked the Medical staff on Nauru not to tell the authorities or the media if they find any evidence of mistreatment or abuse amongst the imprisoned asylum seekers on that Island. I am disgusted by this action.
Are you ok with this?

Suseonline, "they [the federal government] have asked the Medical staff on Nauru not to tell the authorities or the media if they find any evidence of mistreatment or abuse amongst the imprisoned asylum seekers on that Island"

That is absolute BS, wrong.

If you are interested in the facts go to the transcript of the recent Q&A where you will find that Richard Marles, the current Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, put that allegation and others firmly to rest. See here, under 'Labor and borders',
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4250966.htm

See this in particular,
<RICHARD MARLES: Yeah, and, well, you’re able to make it public and that’s what’s important here and can I say there was a Senate inquiry into this, in which we sought to examine exactly this and assurances were given during the Senate testimony on that and the unanimous support report of the Senate absolutely said that all those protections were in place and an author of that report was Sarah Hanson Young. I mean she was the author of that report.

LARISSA WATERS: No, (indistinct) a dissenting report.

RICHARD MARLES: No, there was no dissenting report. There was a unanimous report on that in which Sarah Hanson Young was absolutely a signatory and now what you see is a very an easy road for the Greens and others to go down. I mean, it was on the basis of that, in answer to this question, that we supported the Australian Border Force legislation.>

Good on you Onthebeach....now you use the hated ABC as a source for your information?
And you believe the words from politicians mouths?,
What BS!
Do you think pollies from either party would tell the truth about the debacle on the prison Island of Nauru?

No, I prefer to believe the medical staff working on Nauru .
Why would they lie?
What would they have to gain by lying?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/detention-centre-doctors-workers-dare-government-to-prosecute-them-over-new-laws-20150701-gi24pr.html

Hi Suse,

You blithely suggest: " .... If the smugglers were paid to take their refugees back to land, why wouldn't they then rustle up another cargo of fee-paying refugees and run them all back out onto the high seas to meet another Aussie ship, who will pay them again to take that lot back to land?
"That's what I would do, how about you?"

Well, no, because no would-be refugees would be stupid enough to pay good money to get on a boat if they were sure it would bring them back to Indonesia. Again and again, IF they WERE stupid enough.

Most would hold onto their money, get the next flight back to somewhere nearer their homeland, an start to fill out the proper forms - and wait their turn, like a million other genuine refugees.

That's what I would do, how about you ?

Joe

Suseonline,

The source of the information was as reported, Richard Marles, the current Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

Medical staff are as prone as any other to misunderstanding and human error, especially where there are those with a vested interest in muddying the waters and giving out wrong information.

Greens Q&A member, Larissa Waters got it wrong on the unanimous report that was, contrary to what Larissa would have had the public believe, signed by Sarah Hanson Young.

Then again there may be people who refuse to accept the factual record because it doesn't suit their prejudice against the government.

Rhian

"If you were consistent, you would surely direct as much ire at the people who want to spend your taxes on offshore detention as at those who want to spend your taxes on community settlement."

I am consistent, and I do direct as much ire at all branches of Convention refugee policy. Those who advocate the Manus/Nauru policy do so in order to preserve compliance with the Convention, at an obscene cost. So they are every bit as fake, statist, and deplorable in their phony humanitarianism as Justine whose only interest is showing off at street corners about how morally superior she is.

"Indeed, in an earlier post I asked if you would support allowing asylum seekers entry if they had no access to housing or unemployment benefits. You did not reply."

It all depends what assumptions one makes.

But however much of the current system one assumes as continuing, the problem will always remain the extent to which
a) people who don't want them here are forced to pay for them, and
b) people who do want them here are prevented from providing for them, and
c) the 'noise in the system' - the fake humanitarians of the Manus/Nauru school, and the fake humanitarians of Justine/Burnside's ilk - whose posing is only enabled by the socialisation of the means.

For example I could easily accommodate, feed and provide work for at least two refugees. But if I am to do it under the thicket and thornbush of government regulations on absolutely everything, and administer them all at my own cost and risk, forget it! So both the refugees and I are worse off - and the pretend-humanitarians of the State are better off by parasitising me and the refugees. But this is never the subject of policy discussion, which only ever asks why doesn’t the State get bigger and spend more.

It’s not a problem of refugee status per se, it's a problem of socialism spreading chaos throughout the whole discourse, for example susieonline baying off after the red herring whether refugee status is determined by seaworthiness.

(cont.)

Public discussion if full of this kind of irrelevant diversion, all giving the State a get-out-of-jail free card for the chaos, waste and abuse that it's the cause of, all assuming the solution is ever-more State action.

That's why I support a voluntary solution because it separates the noise from the signal. It tells us straight away who is fair dinkum, and who is a bullsh!t-artist.

If as many people as protest concern, would actually take responsibility for their protested values, it would enable a revolutionary policy shift that is would be better for all concerned.

Even only the thought-experiment of a voluntary dispensation, shows clearly what the only restrainer is. The vast majority of those protesting concern are actually only pretending. They are poser and w@nkers, that is all. They flatly refuse to practise what they preach.

When called on it, as here, they either go quiet and slink off, only to pop up somewhere else on the same site re-running the same fatuous nonsense. Or they puff themselves up with windy indignation like Foxy, as if her own opinion of herself was the topic all along.

That's it. That's all they've got, and all they're made of. It's pathetic. It's nauseating because they don't even mind killing refugees and refugee children by the hundreds so long as they can have their precious little ego trip about how wonderful they are. It's disgusting and they should be ashamed of themselves, and either put up, or shut up.

Hear that Justine? You need to either put up or shut up.

Hurry up and post the signed original Deed and Declaration or come out and admit you're a fake and poser and stop skulking.

"The truth will set you free." John 8:32

Dear Jardine,

I have been giving you a wide-berth, but this time
I feel obliged to respond as you keep referring to me
for some unknown reason. You've crossed the line.
By continuing to slur a person you don't know.
To me - you appear to be arguing on an emotional level -
not a mature, intelligent one. This limits your chances of
winning you points as no-one likes or supports an
abusive, illogical, or weak debater.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. You need to argue in a logical manner.
Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations every
time.

For your information - I have worked with refugees for a
large part of my professional life and I am still involved
with several organisations to whom I give my time.

You should not make assumptions about people you don't
know - even though they may not want to discuss things
with you. That's being immature.

Anyway, I read a review of the latest book by Klaus Neumann,
"Across the Seas: Australia's Response to Refugees -
A History," by Richard Ferguson in Saturday's Age,
July 11th 2015.

Klaus Newmann's attempt to untangle the
refugee question is - according to Ferguson - brilliant and
well-informed, and well worth a read. As the reviewer tells
us - "Australia's torrid relationship with refugees is
something everyone has an opinion on and is a continuing headache
for Canberra."

The book sounds like interesting reading and putting things into
their historical perspective may help people understand things
that are currently happening today regarding asylum seekers.

Enjoy your time on the forum. But kindly put it to
better use than slurring people you don't know.

Foxy

I'm not slurring you. I'm just pointing out the fact that your claimed concern for refugees is fake. It concerns me that people make a big public show of their pretended humanitarianism, when really they refuse to accept responsibility for the costs they are trying to force onto others, knowing those others disagree with them. Only if you admit that's bad does it become a slur. For all I know you think you're being clever.

Why haven't you signed and posted the above Deed and Declaration yet? Why are you trying to divert the discussion into irrelevance?

Dear Jardine,

You seem to be somewhat obsessed with your petition
and getting people to sign it. And then you call
them fakes if they don't.

There are quite a few legitimate petitions from
reputable organisations on the web that people can
sign on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers.
I have signed several of them.
One especially comes to mind - "ChilOut," which
has joined with GetUp, Amnesty International.
Australian Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Save the
Children, Children's Rights International, the
Human Rights Law Centre and Welcome to Australia.
Signing that petition and speaking up for kids in
detention will achieve much more than playing games
with you on this forum.

How about you putting your money where your mouth is
and you sign the petition on behalf of kids in detention.
Instead of wasting everyone's time by carrying on about
your own petition.

http://www.chilout.org/kids_out

I shan't be responding to you any further,

Hi JKJ
Do you intend to draft a similar deed for those who want indefinite detention of asylum seekers to undertake to carry the costs of their preferred policy?

Hi Foxy and Rhian,

I hate to ask the obvious questions but, darn it, I must:

1. Would the boat-people stuck on Nauru and Manus Island and in Cambodia, rather be back in Indonesia ? And even closer to home ?

2. If they had their time over again, would they have filled out all the proper forms and just waited ? Like so many of the other sixty million refugees around the world, many in far more dire circumstances than people who can afford to get on a boat ?

If I were Hunt, I would be providing them all with free phones, to let any future boat-people in on what the consequences are of trying it.

Increase the annual quota, double it to include the most desperate, like those poor buggers from Syria and the Rohingya and from South Sudan and Eritrea and now Nigeria. But send any queue-jumpers to the back of the queue.

Joe

Hi Joe
We can’t really tell the answers to your questions, but by guess is:

1. Maybe. If it were me, I’d rather be free in Indonesia than imprisoned on Manus. But, perhaps the detainees hope that they will eventually be settled somewhere other than Indonesia, where they have no right to work and little or no income support. New Zealand accepted some of Australia’s detainees who were found to be genuine refugees.
It does see a little off that a rich, sparsely-populated country like Australia is trying to palm this problem off onto a poor, densely-populated one.

2. For most, this isn’t an option. About 80,000 refugees are resettled each year, less than 1% of the total. So if there really was an orderly queue, the wait for resettlement would be somewhat over 100 years. In practice of course it doesn’t work like that. The UN’s resettlement programs concentrate on resettling people from a few priority countries where they are able to screen and process applicants. Recipient countries tend to specify where they will accept refugees from, and in some cases this is ad hoc in response to a particular crisis – for example, some countries have recently agreed to accept a one-off quota of Syrian refugees. If you happen to be a refugee in a place without a formal processing channel, or you are not in a country or category prioritised by the UN or a host country, your chances of resettlement are very slim. There is no queue to join.

Hi Rhian,

I'm not sure of your figures - the US takes in something like 300,000 refugees each year (somebody surely has more accurate figures) and by the look of it, Europe will take in a million. New Zealand officially takes 750 each year and Australia (I think) 14,000, which could be kicked up substantially.

As for a queue, of course there is one: it may not be a simple one, because individuals would be judged according to all sorts of criteria of urgency, need, danger, family, etc. But if person A has lodged forms before person B, and person C, etc., all with similar circumstances, then there is a queue.

In the long run, of course, the problems which create refugees have to be resolved at source, which is certainly easier said than done. I'm sure most refugees would rather be home than in strange countries. But until it's as safe for them to do that, as safe as it is for us in our daily lives, then all other countries have a duty to support them.

Joe

Hi Joe

Sorry, I should have given a source. The 60,000 is only those formally settled with the assistance of UNHCR resettlement scheme.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

Other arrivals may be accepted as refugees or under other programs, but I’d be surprised in the USA gets to 300,000.

I agree most refugees want to return home. The problem is they usually can’t do so safely, sometimes for decades.

Only about 10% of refugees are classified as in need of resettlement. These are primarily people “living in perilous situations or have specific needs that cannot be addressed in the country where they have sought protection”. If you meet these criteria you can join the “queue”, and wait.

If you don’t, you must stay wherever you first find asylum, however grim the conditions and remote your prospect of ever going home. Some African refugees have been in camps for decades. There are a few in India who have been in camps since partition in the 1940s.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/in-limbo-between-india-and-bangladesh-a-refugee-camp-is-home

My guess is that a significant proportion of the refugees trying to get to Australia are from the 90% who do not qualify as “in need of resettlement”, and so would never get to join a “queue”. I know many people think they should stay put in refugee camps. But the conditions there can be appalling: living in a tent or humpy, little or no schooling, rudimentary health care, malnutrition, and often rape and violence. I accept that Australia cannot take everyone who wants to come here; but I can't blame people for trying.

Dear Justine,

A timely article.

It was Paul Keating who said when you change the government you change the country. I think to a good degree he was right.

I would even go further, when oppositions are given clear air like Abbott and company in the years of a fractious minority government under Gillard, the power to elicit changes in opinion and impact on the prevailing mood is already in their hands. Abbott used that power to great effect in his drive for the ultimate prize. It was an anything goes campaign that I believe has done this country great harm, especially in the way it thinks about itself.

I had many reasons to be proud of this nation, of its institutions and its standards. I have far fewer now.

There are numerous stances the Abbott government has taken that have served to belittle us. An example of one such position was during the CHOGM meeting in Sri Lanka.

Canada's PM Stephen Harper refused to attend as did the Indian PM both citing ongoing human rights abuses. David Cameron did attend but took several opportunities to strongly condemn the Sri Lankan government in no uncertain terms.

Cont...

Cont...

What did Australia do? We praised a government that many nations regard as being guilty of genocide, we went out of our way to neuter criticism of it from other world leaders and then we gifted them 2 warships. We even had one of our Australia senators arrested and detained for speaking out about the situation in that country without comment from our PM.

Why. Because Abbott was determined to deal with the devil to show his cheer squad, how tough he was prepared to be on those seeking refuge via the sea.

It was sickening and has left a stain on this country. Some may applaud him for brown nosing those accused of genocide purely because of some ill-perceived threat to their standard of living but they are the least of us, the frightened, the racists, the selfish, those so starkly lacking in empathy or compassion that it beggars belief.

Abbott has served to give them some deluded sense that they can crow about their deficiencies as though they were virtues. They are not. I'm not a cheerleader for the Labour parties efforts either but at least them were attempting to address the issue in a manner that would leave us with some semblance of dignity.

Today we have little.