Philo

<< We pay taxes to acess our money if we fall on hard times. That every other poor person in the world sees it as their opportunity for a hand out is nothing more than envy and greed. >>

This is an arrogant statement on your part. We pay taxes because we have little choice. People in poor countries do their best to provide for their families and their future - in the only way they have open to them - by working their fingers to the bone. They work in a way we have never had to. You need to consider yourself fortunate to be born into a wealthy society. We are lucky, that's all, not superior.

<< There are millions of more deserving people than the Bakhtiyaris, yet a few bleeding hearts have put all their energy into this one rather curious family. >>

Refugee advocates did this because this family was clearly wronged, just as they have assisted many other deserving refugees but without the media glare generated by the Baktiyari case.

Besides, by the time the Baktiyari case was making headlines, Western nations were dropping bombs on Afghanistan. I would have thought that this fact alone added considerably to our responsibility to at least offer temporary protection to these people.

<< A family receiving $200 each week in a poor country places them at the top of society. A family in Australia on $200 a week blaces them below the poverty line. >>

This is irrelevant for a family fleeing for their lives. It's a point that people like you just don't seem to understand.

Bronwyn
for someone who wants to be taken seriously, you come up with some pretty shallow stuff at times.

Would you show charity to a man intent on raping you ? Would you show charity to a person intent on stealing from your home ?
Someone seeking to challenge your countries foreign policy ?

The point I'm making, is that charity is for those truly deserving of it.. and the device which divides between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' is the LAW.. both the constitutional type and the moral law.

I'm quite charitable to those who are in genuine non self inflicted need. For those who choose to disobey the laws of their own land, or ours, I'm charitable to the extent that I say the law should run its course.

I am more sympathetic to the West Papuans, as they are Christian, but here is my problem.... Some of them, waved separatist flags when they disembarked from planes here. That is the point where they need more of a rebuke than a reception. The concept of assylum is about one thing..and one thing alone.. SAFETY... not a platform for political propoganda. While I totally identify with their cause, it is not up to THEM to come here and make noise about it in the public media. I wouldnt have a problem with them sharing in private or church meetings when invited to do so. But no matter how I personally feel about their cause, we must apply both political common sense and lawful processing.

"Morally" (In my heart) I am on the side of the West Papuans, but I am also under obligation to "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars" and this includes supporting their lawful processing.

Rather than me quote a whole stack of verses about our Lords words, how about you go and read the WHOLE of Matthew or Luke or Mark or John or better still all 4. You will find them yourself. After all, you banned me from quoting scripture in another post :)

Listening to the ABC this morning I heard Father Bob who has a parish in Sydney? Melbourne? talking about his work. Part of his duties is helping 'Street Kids',hundred of whom are living on OUR streets.
Where are the lawyers,activists,sympathetic hearts trying to do good for these children?
Is it the fact that they are Australian children that makes them of no interest?
I think this shows up a hell of a lot of hypocrits.

AKA said......

*What I would like to know is why so many people so love to spill their bile about someone who is a little different from them.*

Well, of all the statements in the various contributions which deserve the sternest of rebukes, this one is king !

The idea that you can reduce this important subject and the well thought out positions adopted by people to such a naive and simplistic emotional knee jerk "Oh..they are different, we must hate them" kind of thing is as scandalous as it is misconstrued.

AKA your comment is well qualified to be one of the all time most DANGEROUS statements I've seen on OLO. Why dangerous ? because you think the issue is about spilling bile just because people are 'different' ? Rediculous ! Allll of us are 'different' and we don't spill our bile about those differences in Australia ! This has NOTHING to do with would be assylum seekers/economic opportunists/country shoppers (Thanx Leigh) being 'different' it has EVERYTHING to do with them flouting our laws, and our border security.

Believe me, OR.. believe what you are witnessing on TV daily from the USA, where Latino illegals are massing in the streets and making claims like 'We did not cross the border, the border crossed us' a clear reference to the conflict between America and Spain/Mexico which resulted in the present border position.

Plainly these Latino's are not on about 'jobs' they are about 'jobs and reclaiming LOST TERRITORY !' Which puts their political status on a par with terrorists and 5th column invaders.

We have a chance to PREVENT such an eventuality in Australia by ACTING DECISIVELY AND EARLY.

My caps are not shouting, but they sure are spoken with a good deal of passion.

Bronwyn,
Again I ask the question. What threat did Indonesia pose to the Bakhtiyaris? Perhaps you do not understand the question? Why were they fleeing Indonesia for their life as you claim? They had more in common with the Indonesian culture than Australia. They did not have to risk their lives in a leaky boat or being captured by border protection. Until I can receive an acceptable answer to this question then it is obvious I will not understand. Is Indonesia an equally hostile envirionment to their branch of Islam? If so; are we also required to ask is the Bakhtiyari's branch of Islam a threat to our national security.

To quote your point: "This is irrelevant for a family fleeing for their lives. It's a point that people like you just don't seem to understand.

Philo,

Asylum seekers coming via Indonesia cannot apply for refugee status in that country simply because Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Most South-East Asian countries are also non-signatories.

In fact, Australia was considering it's own withdrawal back as far as 2000, but until it withdraws it is bound by certain obligations (most of which it is trying to avoid).

Meanwhile Australia has refused to sign newer conventions (such as those against torture etc).

Most of the issues mentioned in previous posts are also explained at this link:

http://www.chilout.org/information/facts_v_myths.html

No doubt, many posters would disagree with the content at this site because it may challenge some long-held prejudices.