Interesting. No one has responded to my comments of 27 Nov. Not a peep. Just a complete pass-over.

So CJ, what do you think?

I’d like to get a better idea of just what we agree and disagree on. Thanks.

Col Rouge,

I notice you ignored (a) my reasonable question and (b) my straight-forward request:

(a) "...the basis for assuming that you never post any comments about British ethnic gangs is that you simply don't. And never have. Yet you are happy to comment negatively about 'ethnic gangs' from other national backgrounds. Why is that so?"

(b) "Perhaps you could mount a reasoned argument why you find it necessary to mention ethnicity at all when the issue is gang behaviour?

I remind you of your comment: " When I make statements such as yours [another poster], I tend to support them with data."

All show and no substance?

CJ Morgan has complained several times in this thread of the discussion having been diverted from the subject of the article, that of alleged failure on the part of Australia to provide asylum to claimants.

A fuller understanding of the allegedly diversionary comments may be obtainable if it is borne in mind that most of the responses here are from ordinary Australians, as opposed to Australian politicians. Many of the treaties being held up as a standard against which Australia can be shown to have failed to fulfil its obligations have been drawn up by persons not representative of Australians, and were ratified unthinkingly over the years by the Australian politician class, a class as to which there is widespread agreement that it has not been well representing the interests of ordinary Australians.

franklin's post of 26 November 2008 12:03:52 PM makes reference to the 2001 Australian Electoral Study, "[which] found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people, ie: secondary movement asylum seekers." On this issue Howard did not lead: he followed the overwhelming public view. Pursuit of a continuing vendetta against Howard over technicalities surrounding this issue will inevitably run up against strong opposition from a majority of ordinary Australians who see the real issues and risks. Hence the 'diversion'.

In short, the 'international treaty obligations' line will not stick with the bulk of the Australian public where Australian sovereignty stands to be diluted.

Ludwig complains of non-response to his posts of 27 November. He might well find three to one in favour of his last paragraph therein, but of course it is difficult for such agreement to be articulated and remain 'on topic' if the article itself seeks to divert from the real area of public concern, as this one does.

Like Ludwig, I complain of non-response as to how Australia's immigration program is seen as being 'social engineering'. Both Bronwyn and Bruce Haigh have respectively asserted and accepted such. I'd like to hear more. Soon.

Hi Ludwig -

Sorry, I missed your post, buried as it was in a pile of Collie-do.

Briefly, to your hypothetical points 1 & 2 - who knows how many asylum seekers would have arrived in Australia in the absence of Howard's cynical manipulation of their misfortune for political purposes? There is no evidence to suggest that "thousands more people" would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia, other than in the imaginations of those who responded so readily to Howard and Reith's dog-whistles.

<< Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Australian authorities didn’t do their damnedest to properly determine all asylum seekers’ asylum status? Are they suggesting people were knowingly sent back to very precarious life-threatening situations? Isn’t it a case of best judgements being made on the information available at the time? >>

While I have no doubt that Immigration officials do their best, surely you're not suggesting that they are immune from political pressures from the incumbent government, particularly one which made a virtue of harsh treatment of refugees? Clearly, in the cases of the subjects of the documentary, somebody stuffed up really badly with fatal consequences for the subjects of their erroneous determinations.

<< it is far too easy to get terribly hung up on a small number of unfortunate stories >>

Indeed. Particularly if one is thrown down a well and has a grenade dropped in with you.

>>>Anansi. Do you have trouble with anger?
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 1 December 2008 10:17:14 PM<<<

Clearly Mr Right does:

>>>Spikey is one of the self-haters whom I refuse to acknowledge because he posts utter rubbish.
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 29 November 2008 4:58:22 PM<<<

>>>Anansi,
Good luck to your children; but they are not doing anything other kids have done and, being Australian born, they have probably learned more from their peers than they ever did from their not-very-pleasant parent.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 28 November 2008 1:40:17 PM<<<

>>>Romany,
You have opened your big mouth again
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:45:16 AM<<<

Another poster with anger issues is Col Rouge. Now that he has been banned from calling refugees “swill” he makes do with referring to CJ as 'Cjmoron' every second post. Or pathetic little snipes like:

>>>Spikey, or maybe that should be cork-screw (spikey but “twisted”)
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 1 December 2008 7:59:28 AM<<<

Col and Mr Right you are both old enough and, dare I say, intelligent enough to know how to debate – attempting to divert the paucity of your arguments by personal insult does not convince or fool anyone. And you wonder why you are called in turn 'pig ignorant'.

Do either of you say any of the above to people face to face?

Incapable of providing facts, your opinions on immigration and understanding of refugee status are as flaccid as they are spurious.

Anansi, Romany, Spikey and CJ Morgan

Q: What do you get when you cross a neocon with a lemming?

A: Peace.

CJ; "There is no evidence to suggest that "thousands more people" would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia..."

Aha, the first point of disagreement. Oh I do love a good stouch! (:>)

There was a great deal of evidence, and it wasn't being kept secret. Phillip Ruddock was constantly in the news for weeks if not months before the Tampa incident talking about a build-up of people in source countries, people gathering in Indonesia and an increase in people-smuggling operations.

One thing is for sure; in August 2001 a comprehensive effort was needed to stop this escalation of asuylum seekers heading for Australia decisively.

"...surely you're not suggesting that they are immune from political pressures from the incumbent government..."

Immigration officials are not immune from political pressures. But it made no sense at the time that they would have been pressured to send people back to dangerous environments. Afterall, the vast majority of asylum seekers were accepted as refugees, at least on a temporary basis.

If the numbers of asylum seekers had considerably increased, then you can bet that there would have been a lot of pressure on the authorities to send a much larger portion of them home.