Col

What part of "A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution, war, terrorism, extreme poverty, famines, or natural disaster" don't you understand.

If you do not understand or do not like it I suggest you lobby your heroes to withdraw from the UN conventions our Government has signed.

The fact that Indonesia is not signatory to the UN convention means that they would be returned to Iraq.

"they would respect Australia's right to determine who comes here and wait there turn, like thousands of other do." (spelling error included)

This is a fallacy that has been spread by Howard, we either respect our international obligations or withdraw from them.

Of course we can import hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers to drive down wages, but we cannot help people seeking asylum.

Col, on the application forms for refugee claims it says under the section "any other countries where asylum could have been claimed" that Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt.

Article 31 of the refugee convention, which is enshrined in Australian law at article 36 of the migration act, says that no person shall be penalised due to lack of documents or method of entry - this is universally accepted throughout the entire world.

98% of those people you claim didn't respect us are now being made citizens of Australia after we tortured them for years on end.

About 50,000 people do break our migration rules every year when they come here and just forget to leave. The reason they are never charged with breaching our migration act is because all offences for being in Australia without a visa were removed from the act in 1992.

Mickijo, you have banged on about the muslim country rot for years and never read anything or listen to anyone. Indonesia might be a muslim country but they have never signed the refugee convention so they send people home to be killed.

Kapeesh? It makes no difference if asylum seekers in Indonesia drop in from the moon, Indonesia has the right to send them home.

We don't and we have not right to "deter" refugees - our own law says it is illegal to use detention or any other means to stop people seeking our help.

To insist still that the argument is rational is a bit like saying you have the right to turn up at an emergency room but not without an invitation and to get an invitation you have to be in the hospital.

There will be a memorial for the survivors next week - at least show them the same respect as we show the dead of the WTC and Bali.

sneekeepete and jimlab

I know your posts were supportive of Tony, but I thought your references to him being a pedant and a conspiracy theorist were unfairly denigrating of his efforts.

His search for the truth behind the official white-washing of this tragic event is in every way significant and worthwhile.

His analysis of the deals struck between the Indonesian and the Howard Government is both logical and well supported. And as he points out the recent intense lobbying between the two governments over the West Papuan arrivals only further supports his case.

Tony and Marilyn

At this point its mostly innuendo and arguments from silence.

Make Charges, stand by them, and be prepared for any legal action which might ensue.

Marilyn has made actionable charges:

"At gunpoint with the help of the AFP" is a very serious charge. It was not raised as a 'question' . It was not stated as 'opinion' but as fact.

Marilyn should expand this to indicate exactly what she means by 'with the help of'

SNEEKY..
I am not a member of any political party, and my religious standpoint would not bring me even a farthing of financial reward for my efforts.

Tony Kevin is a member of a political party, The Greens, and if he can successfully 'damage' the government, he stands to gain financially and politically. I am therefore very suspicious of the nobility and sincerity of his motives for the fate of "this" particular batch of people.

Could we be 'swamped'?

Fact 1.
[The backlog of asylum seekers in the UK in July 2000 was over 100 000] (link below)

Fact 2. Since 1985 the number of asylum seekers in Europe has outnumbered all legally admitted foreign workers.(28)

Fact 3. even though only a small minority of asylum seekers gain recognition (the rate of recognition in EU countries in the 1990s was ...10-15 per cent), only a minority of failed asylum seekers ever actually leave.

The true insidious nature of many assylum claims are found in the statistics of 'country shopping' which saw 90% of all assylum claims in Europe going to just 4 countries. England, Germany, Holland and Switzerland. Why ? Why not 'France' ? Simple- France understands 'persecution' to mean "The government must be complicit"
Why ? again simple, if not, anyone can claim persecution from anyone. (even their NEIGHBOUR) and goto the 4 countries listed.

So, there are many problems with the anachronistic UN Charter.
see here for details
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RP/2000-01/01RP05.htm#problems

Claiming 'technical' refugee status is tantamount to a defense lawyer, while knowing his client is 'obviously guilty' will use any trick to get them off.

David BOAZ “Marilyn has made actionable charges:

"At gunpoint with the help of the AFP" is a very serious charge. It was not raised as a 'question' . It was not stated as 'opinion' but as fact.”

Exactly David as I wrote previously to Marilyn

“as a matter of public duty to bring that claim to court and have it heard so guilt of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police can be evidenced”

But will she – no, she is happy to libel a senior Police Officer but does not want to do anything which would “test” the honesty (as in without of lies or innuendo) of her claim.

Regarding swamping, doubtless the most successful strategy is one which supports the right of Australians to decide, through the elected government, who will be allowed to come to Australia and who will not. No one wants the riots which France experienced.

The problem is, these leftie and greenie trolls all assume the woes of the world are “Western” made.

Whereas the problem with much of the developing world is their capacity to abuse their own citizenry and the corruption which comes from entrenched racism and tribalism.

Steve Madden suggests Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt from accepting refugees (another Kyoto?).

Australia should apply for the same exemption.

When defacto “Muslim” countries are exempt from accepting Muslim refugees, it is reasonable to assume that a defacto “Christian” country should likewise be exempt (not that I have anything personally against Muslims but the “reasoning” would seem to me to be pretty straight forward).

If we are to accept refugees then those refugees should understand that they are here not as a natural right but there acceptance of refugee status puts certain obligations onto them. Assimilation into the existing culture being first and foremost.

Of course the real reason the “internationalists” seek waves of oppressed refugees?
Like El Qaeda, they see refugees as the best place to pick up recruits. Who could be more “disenfranchised” and vulnerable to insidious torrent of lies from the "left", than a refugee from a third world country ?

I must thank Tony Kevin for his dedication to this important issue.

Do you remember Philip Ruddock receiving a standing ovation?
Do you remember the infamous "Border Protection Bill 2001" ?
All four pages of it. Read it to appreciate just what drives this Government.

Thank you also Marilyn Shepherd. Never mind the blowies.

An old friend, a refugee from laos, showed me how to swat blowies.
You will observe that a blowie can not walk and fly at the same time. Just hit it when it starts to walk.