“It is clear that anyone who would be disappointed that my remarks are “left on” OLO does not have the slightest inkling of what freedom of speech is all about”

Perhaps, Mr. Right, they(we?) have a much clearer idea than you give credit for.

Throughout humankind’s history the prohibitions on speaking freely about religion and politics have seen millions killed. Those who fought for the first Bill of Rights in 1689 gave us the beginnings of a dream of freedom of expression. Voltaire’s Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 took us one step further and J.S. Mills in 1859 further built upon our universal rights.

To see this cause debased so that individuals can claim the right to verbal abuse is a mere travesty of what Freedom of Speech means.

As with any right, it’s attainment has resulted in certain responsibilities e.g. one has the right to drink alcohol over a certain age – but not to misuse alcohol to the detriment of the community. The same with driving a car, carrying fire-arms or any other rights we have.

The right to express our political or religious views publicly in no way nullifies the rights of people to live free of gratuitous insults towards themselves and their families. Because we live in a democracy wherein we all have the same rights, (ostensibly), legislation has also been passed to ensure that anyone who does misuse the right to Freedom of Speech by employing libel, slander, obscenity or sedition can be punished.

Such punishment is rarely sought however, as the truism that democracy is more accurately described as majority rule, ensures that our rights are usually upheld: the need to vilify, insult and denigrate strangers is looked upon by that majority as socially unacceptable.

The minority who have no such compunction are, perhaps, incorrigible. However, for members of this minority then to invoke Freedom of Speech as their excuse, is completely illogical.

The reminder that we live in a democratic society does not pardon them either because, in such societies, the minority do not hold the advantage.

Fractelle writes:

"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'."

And where are Col Rouge and Mr Right?

A pair of neocons out with lemmings?

Nobody has mentioned, with respect to Afghan asylum seekers that had undertaken secondary movement by around 2001, that following the 11 September 2001 events in the US there soon came to be a regime change in Afghanistan. The regime from which these secondary movement asylum seekers at the time were fleeing was the former one of the Taliban, which, prior to US intervention, controlled virtually the entire country.

Given the regime change in Afghanistan that came about whilst these people were detained under the Pacific Solution, there was perhaps reason to believe that the persecution they had claimed to be fleeing was no longer occurring in Afghanistan. It is, after all, from the organised persecution by those exercising temporal power that asylum is accepted as a remedy in the case of fugitives from such a regime. Asylum was never meant to be a remedy or refuge for large numbers of people from general civic and economic conditions that may prevail in any particular country.

It is also not clear to me whether some secondary movement asylum seekers in detention chose to return to Afghanistan as a way of ending their detention, as distinct from being returned there as a result of a unilateral determination of the Australian government. There is a difference.

The principle of non-refoulment has been spoken of as having been violated by Australia in the return of some of these former detainees to Afghanistan. There are now clearly able to be seen to be two possible reasons why such claimed violation may not have been relevant at the time of their return. That civic conditions within Afghanistan continue to be subject to disorders of the sort that resulted in the deaths of some formerly detained persons that were subsequently returned to that country is unfortunate.

To remove the double standard with respect to asylum entitlement, perhaps Australia should instead negotiate a bilateral agreement with, say, Kenya, under which any and all secondary movement asylum seekers attempting entry would be placed in a refugee camp in that country run under UNHCR auspices, there to join a queue.

Ludwig - yes, Ruddock was making all sorts of claims prior to the Tampa incident. I think that Ruddock's public numerical estimates should be regarded as having the same degree of validity as, e.g. Howard and Reith's subsequent "children overboard" claims and Ruddock's prevarication over the SIEV-X abomination. I meant real, verifiable evidence that there were "thousands" more refugees who would have attempted to seek asylum in Australia had the Howard government not enacted its execrable 'Pacific Solution'.

<< But it made no sense at the time that they would have been pressured to send people back to dangerous environments. >>

I forget which minister (Vanstone?) it was who said that the dangers of refoulement to Afgahnistan were similar to those of crossing an Australian street, but they were clearly wrong. At least from the perspective of those who were refused asylum and were returned to be murdered, and those Australian soldiers who are still being killed or wounded in Afghanistan.

One could apply the reverse logic and ask why it was deemed safe for those particular refugees to be denied asylum, when the claims of the vast majority of their peers were determined to be valid? Like I said, somebody stuffed up - badly.

Forrest Gumpp - I note you complain about others not responding to your posts, but your response to my correction of your claim about asylum seekers who arrive by air was one of silence. You can babble on as much as you like about "secondary movement" asylum seekers, but under the law as it stands the great majority of such refugees who make it to Australian territory and seek asylum are granted it, eventually.

This may not suit the xenophobes and closet racists, so I recommend you guys begin a campaign to change Australia's treaty obligations. Undoubtedly there are various organisations devoted to such purposes that you could join, but you might have to shed your precious anonymity.

Morgan was a little slower than usual puffing himself up to continue his long term obsession with me. He must hang onto my every word; he was the first and only one to twig that Mr. Right was also Leigh some time ago. This time I’m Alf Garnett and Victor Meldrew as well. I supposed I should be flattered to have got under his skin as much. I notice, though, that Col Rouge’s sensible view of things is also getting to him.

Poor old CJ is going to be kept busy with two “heartless bastards” on his books.

I’m not sure what he means by:” Bastards like these aren't game enough to own the odious filth that they excrete anonymously in online forums.”

Does it mean that CJ Morgan is not voicing his unreasoning hatred anonymously? We don’t know him anymore than he knows Col Rouge and me. Or, does he intend to identify himself – full name and address with documentary proof the next time he runs amok with his abuse of others?

He is so full of hatred that he doesn’t know what he is saying anymore. The poor fellow forgets that all posters on OLO are anonymous, including him. I’ve heard of people whose obsessions finally see them losing it altogether. The “…odious filth that they excrete…” when referring to reasonable (if not universally liked) opinions of others is way over the top, and suggests that CJ needs help already.

Anyway, CJ Morgan will be pleased to know that people smuggling and people attempting to enter Australia is on the rise since Ruddy Labor overturned our border protection. He will be outraged, though, to learn that Immigration Minister Evans said that we will be increasing support for Indonesian authorities “in an effort to stamp out the surge.” (The Australian 1/12/08).

Although the Government recognises that there is a surge, it denies its policies are to blame, of course. But, over the year since Labor has been in, activity has increased.

There is a long way to go on this subject. I hope CJ Morgan can make it.

Ludwig

1 Weaker boarder protection would have seen a flood of thousands of illegal boat-people attempt to invade these shores and circumvent the requirements of the Australian Migration Act, the Howard strategy was in the national interest.

2 The scale of such an invasion could have caused wide scale social unrest by the majority of those people who were born or arrived here legally.

3 people who treat Australian rights and processes with contempt,. Cannot expect support from those they deliberately offend.

4 there are plenty or real refugees worthy of refugee visa, without issuing them to those who simply rock up and demand entry.

Spikey, you amuse more than upset me, I consider it similar to poking a slug and watching it squirm (maybe childish but there is a child in all of us, as the quality of your postings proves).

Ah Fractelle, our resident whine expert ..

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

I see little of fact in your post, mostly ad hominine and rank hypocrisy … nothing new in that.

Footnote, since you bring it up. I have never suggested refugees are “Swill” because they are “Refugees”.

Indeed I always have expressed full support for the compassionate opportunities which an Australian refugee visa offers someone who is living in dire straits.

However, I have never considered as a “refugee” someone who just happens upon these shores, having paid a lot of money to people smugglers for their attempt at a clandestine arrival.

What defines those who try to arrive here with their first intention to contemptibly flaunt and undermine the laws of this country, by attempting clandestine entry?

Well, such contempt clearly declares such persons unworthy of either entry or citizenship and they should be banned forever from applying for a visa in the future, there are plenty of real refugees who are far more deserving.

You call them what you like.
I have accurately called them what they are.

Keep up the good postings Mr Right….