The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Seeking Australian asylum: a well founded fear > Comments

Seeking Australian asylum: a well founded fear : Comments

By David Corlett, published 20/11/2008

Instead of receiving protection and safety, they were detained within Australia’s Pacific Solution before being returned to Afghanistan; a country racked by violence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. All
I agree with bennie - this is a timely article that reminds us not only of the inhumanity of the erstwhile Howard regime, but also of the existence among us of significant numbers of heartless bastards like Mr Right, Porkycrap, Col Rouge, franklin and Banjo.

As David Corlett says, "We are a lesser nation for the fate to which we have returned these people". We are also a lesser nation for the existence among us of selfish and inhumane xenophobes such as those named above.

Thanks also to Spikey, dickie and Bruce Haigh for reminding us that there are plenty of decent Aussies out here, as opposed to the odious minority who are overly represented at OLO.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 21 November 2008 11:16:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce Haigh provides emotive generalizations but does not directly comment on the issues raised by Mr.Right, Col Rouge, Polycarp, Banjo and myself. Instead he states there is a debate to be had on this subject but not in the terms that have been outlined. Why only on the terms you prefer Bruce Haigh ? Commentary on the mindset of Bruce Haigh on the secondary movement asylum seeker debate can be viewed at the following online blog:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/haighs_chocolate_coating

CJMorgan’s references to “heartless bastards like Mr Right, Porkycrap, Col Rouge, franklin and Banjo” and the “odious minority who are overly represented at OLO” are most disappointing. What is to be gained by making comments such as these. It needs to be realised that there were many intelligent, decent and caring people who supported the Howard governments stance on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

The secondary movement asylum seeker debate was by no means a black and white issue, there were many very facets to it. It can perhaps be described as a moral dilema in terms of should Australia’s humanitarian efforts have been aimed towards those most in need or should precedence for Australia’s humanitarian efforts have been allowed to be taken by secondary movement asylum seekers engaging people smugglers at the expense of unhcr refugees in such places as Kakuma Refugee camp. It seems that the majority of the Australian electorate seemed to prefer that Australia’s humanitarian efforts were aimed towards those most in need.
Posted by franklin, Friday, 21 November 2008 12:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with legitimate refugees
who are fleeing terrible conditions in their
homelands to want to stay in Australia.

After all
our country has signed an international agreement
to take in refugees. I believe that
genuine refugee numbers are not that large. Why
does it take so long to process them? It does border
on inhumanity to keep people here for years and years,
only to send them back.

I do have a problem with people who
jump the queue ahead of everyone else, and
come here for economic reasons. Many of these people
have criminal records - and would have a problem being
accepted.

Why does our government place these people in detention
centres at the taxpayers expense?
Why aren't these people screened much quicker? If New
Zealand can manage to do it faster, why can't we?

There must be a better way of sifting through the numbers
and processing the genuine from the fraudulent.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 November 2008 1:27:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce,

Never mind. I agreed with your last article and the one today.

While I accept that you have had a professional role with refugees, I do not agree that it takes more courage to cut and run than it does to stay behind. To be honest, I don’t see how a man like you can believe that either.

There is no point in asking us to put ourselves in other people’s shoes when we clearly do not know what we would do. Decisions are made, and opinions formed, all the time by people who don’t have to answer hypothetical questions like that. Government policy is not based on ‘what-would-I-do-feel-if-it-were-me’ when people responsible make decisions and draft laws. As a diplomat, you would know that.

Difficult questions and dilemmas concerning other people are always made by people not experiencing the problems of those affected by their decisions.

Of course the people we are talking about are not “lesser beings”, but I think that you are trying to pull the old ‘weepies’ and ‘we won’t go to heaven if we don’t…’ stuff there.

But, life is harder for some than it is for others, and that is not the fault of the Howard Government, the current Government, or the Australian people.

The RRT is certainly no place for bleeding hearts. The law is the law, and I feel sure that you discharged your duties well. The same applies to time-wasting appeals to the High Court. If the work of magistrates and Tribunals has been done according to law, appeals will be dismissed.

I don’t see what any of this has to do with my post (which I stand by with sincerity), and I do not see your problem with my bleeding heart comments regarding the programme in question, the meddling NGO concerned and the dubious claims made by people on that programme.

Thanks for you comments.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 21 November 2008 1:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce.. yes, I'm sure I can do better.

Today on the news, it was reported that in the last month we have had 6 attempted boat loads of so called assylum seekers try to reach here.

3 were turned back by Indonesia and the other 3 apparently made it.

Last year, we had SIX boats.. now..as the news caster said "we might call it a coincidence" that as soon as Nauru etc have been dismantled....and some other measures loosened up.. suddenly we have as many boats of illegals in a month as we did in a year........

The simple fact is, that if we are a soft target.. we will be abused and used.

Your work in helping genuine assylum seekers is noble..no problem with that.. as long as it does not infringe on our scheduled refugee program.

None of us were born yesterday, we all (including you) know that there are more assylum seekers in the world than our whole population many times over.. and clearly we cannot take more than a selected few.
That is the rather cold fact of life.
It means..that some people who would like to come here cannot..and may die as a result. This does not mean we should accept any more than our national interest (cultural/political/religious/demographic) and our environmental sustainability can allow.

I'm all for a VERY tough line against the boat people.. they know we have a refugee program, they just want to circumvent it.

If you use the argument that 'but they cannot access that program easily'.. I'm afraid you have to then apply that to ALL refugees in that category.....

I still maintain that immigration, both illegal and legal is always about politics not people.

Our advocates and politicians just disguise that in flowery emotive language..that's all.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 21 November 2008 3:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp says:

"we all...know that there are more assylum seekers in the world than our whole population many times over.. and clearly we cannot take more than a selected few.
That is the rather cold fact of life. It means..that some people who would like to come here cannot..and may die as a result. This does not mean we should accept any more than our national interest (cultural/political/religious/demographic) and our environmental sustainability can allow."

Yes, that's what you think. But what would Jesus Christ have said about the value of human life as against the so-called national interest? Would He have said: "That is the rather cold fact of life"? Would he have said people might die, but oh well that's life?
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 21 November 2008 5:52:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy