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 > The wretched of the Earth > Comments

The wretched of the Earth : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 20/10/2009

Asylum seekers are in a state of desperation and despair. They cannot live in their own country. They have nowhere to go.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I share your thoughts .
The Rud Turnbull exercise intolerance / intransigence in particular , reflects Australian intolerance to Islamic People .

The fact that both our Leaders are prepared to condemn those people to misery and very likely death is surprising . I thought better of them .

The other issue I have is their Western Dress and their kids who spoke like English was their first language .

My impression of the Tamils was a gang of murderous Islamic jungle fighters for who War was their mantra similar to the Tali ban .

Those people on that boat looked more like Australians to me .

Have I got this terribly wrong somehow ?
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:48:13 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
Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".
People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal.
Posted by E.Sykes, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:19:18 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
To suggest that Turnbull and Rudd are vying with each other to be the toughest on illegals is nonsense. Apart from the fact that nobody can be tough about anything in opposition, Rudd (who could) is about as tough as a Sunday-school teacher: he openly invited illegals to come here by dropping any pretence of border security, and he has done nothing since except go crying to Indonesia for help to stop one boat after allowing all the others this year to arrive successfully.

Asylum seekers are not in “a state of desperation and utter despair.” They can “live in their own country.” They are confidence tricksters who have paid a good deal of money to be brought illegally to a country whose streets they believe to be paved with gold. They come because Australia is a soft touch; because of immigration agents; because of do-gooders and others within Australia who are always using the entire Australian society to express their own, personal and childish views of ‘humaneness’.

It IS the fault of these illegals that “…they find themselves stateless and dispossessed.” Like all people who think that they are lovely and kind, Jennifer Wilson ignores the majority of people who do stay in their own countries and endure the hardship that the illegal entrants can pay to escape from. All apologists for illegals are phonies, using people who have no respect for the sovereignty and laws of Australia to sneak in here while their fellow countrymen tough it out.

These weak, naïve people who think that counties like Australia should accept whoever chooses to come to Australia – using the old rich country, helping the poor undeveloped and strife torn country argument – totally overlook the fact that the West is the way it is because the people had the courage and the moral background to fight over a long time for what they have. Undeveloped countries have to work out their problems the same way. We owe them nothing.

No illegals should set foot in Australia, ever!
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:30:02 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
I think like most Australians, I believe all refugees should be taken in and given appropriate protection, and that illegal immigrants should be immediately returned to their own country.

However, I think the main debate centers around how we distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal immigrants. One extreme would be to treat all arrivals as refugees until verified and provide them with freedom, accommodation and counseling. The other extreme would be to lock them all up in prison and then send them home when possible.

In reality we need a solution which lies somewhere in between. If we debated the important topics, rather than fear mongering or name calling then we will come closer to a solution to this problem.

Btw, can anyone provide a definition we use in Australia to determine if people are genuine refugees?
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:08:13 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
Stezza, as far as I know there are processes for determining the status of would be immigrants. One is our own process and the other is that defined by the UNHCR. Given that those arriving by boat have no papers, the process is very drawn out. Those arriving under the UNHCR applications have been validated and have the correct papers.

As pointed out in a similar thread, there are some 15 million desperate and displaced persons looking for settlement in other countries, many in UNHCR run camps. Should we as a Nation focus our ability to help upon those we can quickly accommodate and settle, or should we allow our resources to be diverted at the expense of other potential refugees?

Perhaps advocates such as E.Sykes/Jennifer Wilson should be allowed to sponsor boat people. All they have to do is stand guarantor, cover their Medicare, Centrelink and housing costs and ensure they become productive members of our community. These are already the conditions for many visa classes for immigrants to Australia that are non-refugee. They might even make a small profit from the $15,000 per person that would otherwise be paid to people smugglers.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:47:16 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
Spindoc,

That is an excellent idea and quite outside the square.

How about if we add the proviso that only UN refugee applicants in camps around the world were entitled to be the recipiants of such uniquely Australian generosity. And their numbers limited only by the numbers of Australian sponsers. Where can I sign up? I'd sponsor an individual tomorrow.

Well done.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:59:18 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
ShazBaz, Tamils are typically Hindu - although I have met Christian Tamils.

Stezza: << can anyone provide a definition we use in Australia to determine if people are genuine refugees? >>

Australia uses the UN definition, i.e.

<< Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.[1]

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee

Leigh: << No illegals should set foot in Australia, ever! >>

Leigh, you know damned well that asylum seekers are not "illegals", but you mendaciously persist in using that deprecatory term in order to vilify them. Indeed, you don't even seem to acknowledge that genuine refugees exist.

You are a truly hateful person.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:04:14 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
Demonising asylum seekers is a ruse to con the gullible bogan voter in marginal seats that immigration is not at too high a level, yet when Howard did this he took immigration to record levels and the current government appears reluctant to significantly curb all immigration in the long run. Our rivers are drying up, excess people create higher living costs for all but the rich with increased housing costs, and higher food costs as our [too cheap] irrigation water is used inappropriately, such as for the raising of cotton and rice and excess grain to be used for producing manufactured and processed foods (industrial grain/food).

Once, we had similar levels of fecundity to the 3rd world and when contraception was easily available both our people's fecundity as well as hardship in large families almost went out the window. If the 3rd world is suffering, they should curb their fecundity but their leaders want a high birth rate for more factory fodder and cannon fodder, plus religous leaders for their own empire-building.

Only those benefiting from high inflows are those interested in hiring cheap unskilled/semiskill labor and those in property etc.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:11:42 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
Yes indeed Jennifer, there is much sadness and sorrow in the third
world. So the question arises, what is the solution?

Would you like me to charter the Queen Mary and bring them here?
How many would you like? 5 million, 10 million, you name it, it
can be done.

Will it ultimately solve anything? I doubt it, for global population
is increasing at 80 million a year, more refugees being created, mostly in countries where there
is an ever growing population problem.

Fact is that Australia cannot solve the world's problems, so trashing
this country, to ultimately solve nothing, IMHO makes no sense
at all, apart from a short term feelgood solution.

But I am merely one of 22 million, who all can express their opinion
on this. Somehow I doubt that the majority of Australians agree
with you.

If too many people fighting is creating the problem in the first
place, they ultimately need to solve their problems in their
countries, or cut their populations with good old family planning,
so that there won't be all this figthing over land to live on.

Simply transferring the problem to Australia, is not going to solve
anything.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:18:53 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
Spindoc - I like your thinking. If the 'do-gooders' had to take on this responsibility we wouldn't see too much sponsorship though.

As for CJ Morgan - if he/she thinks that people arriving ad lib on leaky boats having country hopped and paid smugglers a lot of cash for the fare is kosher then I suggest he/she has another think about what this might mean - not only for Australia's security but also in terms of health and bio-security.

I'm with Leigh on this one - guess that makes me a hateful person too eh
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:21:05 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
Spindoc just may have something there, maybe we could make it a bit like HECS according to their degree of desperation and length of time spent waiting. This sounds like Tom Hank's character in The Terminal, but that doesn't apply to asylum seekers, who are usually just out of sight, out of mind. The Yanks have 'Gitmo, we have Christmas Island (Nauru is on the reserves list)and the Excision Act.

If you believe in the Law of Karma, or what goes around comes around, one day it may well happen to one of us, and maybe a prominent one of us at that, and show us up for the scrooges we've really become.
Posted by SHRODE, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:35:22 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
"Over the last few days I’ve begun noticing similarities in the facial characteristics of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Both are fleshly, in the archaic sense of plump or fat. There is an impression of a certain self-satisfaction that may be the inevitable consequence of this fleshliness, or that may have more interior causes about which I will not speculate."
How can anybody take seriously an article that starts like that? A correlation between self-satisfaction and fleshliness or a correlation between self-satisfaction with something else perhaps demonic possession?
And please CJ: "You are a truly hateful person."
Fancy a comment like that coming from the most consistent purveyor of bile on this site.
Posted by blairbar, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 2:01:59 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 would like to think that all these people with enlarged social consciences and magna sensitivities to the plight of people living in other countries who are desperate to make their way into Australia have all their lives been working tirelessly and making huge sacrifices and donations to the desperate and poverty-stricken in their own country or have they been blind to them all this time.Their consciences have suddenly come to life at what is going on in the world ouside.

They have had a timely reminder that they should help those less fortunate than themselves.Right.

How many shades of sheer hyprocrisy are there? Its mind boggling.
socratease
Posted by socratease, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 2:18:23 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
Socratease,

My husand is unemployable as his career was as a firefighter and those skills are useless to business, plus he is way too old for the 30 something boss to contemplate. So he does the SES thing up here in the Far North and has the rich small l liberals use his labour for free when a branch falls on their eaves after a breeze passes through. Then when someone does something silly and gets lost they complain of the cost to the taxpayer.

This is a true story.
Posted by TheMissus, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 6:43:50 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
Stezza

The definition used in Australian law comes from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..."

The reason there is a legal divide between refugees in overseas camps, and those who enter Australia, is because the Convention provides that, once a person claiming refugee status has entered the country, you can't kick him out without first determining whether or not he is a refugee. If he is, then he is entitled to the protection of the signatory state, the first right of which is the right not to be returned to his home state.

On the other hand, with people offshore, even if they have been determined to have the status of refugees, that still doesn't give them a right to come into Australia.

That is why there is a big premium on getting into the country by hook or by crook. Even if they have entered unlawfully, in the sense that they didn't have a visa which the law requires every non-citizen to have, still they are lawful in the sense that Australia's obligations under the convention prevent their being deported unless they have first been determined to be refugees.

Spindocs point is an excellent one. It is easy to talk about our "collective greed"; but the relevant collective greed is for social security.

Those in favour of sponsoring refugees should be free to do so and indemnify the Commonwealth. I also would sign up for it. On the other hand, those doing so should not also be taxed for it, and neither should anyone else who doesn't want to pay for them.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:51:54 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
All Refugees are Illegal Immigrants in the same way that all people in receipt of Newstart allowance are Dole Bludgers - until they can prove they are actively looking for work.

All single mothers are welfare cheats cashing in on baby bonuses (another rising epidemic if you believe the media) until their circumstances prove otherwise.

The wealthy are all brazen tax cheats until they're audited - and so on.

It all comes down to your own attitude and disposition - not necessarily somebody elses circumstances.

Using these labels says a lot more about the accuser than the accused doesn't it?
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:35:07 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
blairbar: << the most consistent purveyor of bile on this site >>

I love the way that those at OLO who want to vilify the most oppressed and wretched people project their own behaviour on to people like me who speak up for human rights and compassion.

In terms of "purveying bile", there's no way that I could possibly compete with the Leighs, Cols and ozzies of the hater contingent, but strangely the supercilious blairbar doesn't seem to have a problem with their odious vilification of some of the least fortunate people in the world.

I regard it as a measure of success when someone who has been as vacuous in their commentary in this forum finally shows their true colours, rather than pretending to sit on the fence.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:08:49 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
YES SHAZBAZZZA you have it wrong.

They are in western dress and speak fluent English because they are the wealthy ones.

They pay $5000 each to get here! They speak English back home which means they are $$$$$.

You = naive dumb westerner who is gullible

Them = ppl who want to exploit you, Medicare, and CENTRELINK! And think white ppl stupid too
Posted by Benjam1n, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 3:14:55 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
Well CJ if by vacuous you mean I don't personally abuse people if I disagree with their arguments then my comments are indeed vacuous. However I left using name-calling as argumentative device during my primary school years and have tried to argue using reason and facts. As for "pretending to sit on the fence" I guess it is a lot more comfortable than actually sitting on a fence or in your case falling off a fence.
I don't see in this site "odious vilification of some of the least fortunate people in the world";I see many contributions from people who don't share your views but then I thought forums like OLO exist for the civilized exchange of views.
Posted by blairbar, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 5:20:45 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
It's very hard to tolerate some people .
But I will never give up .
Racism why are some people such passionate hate plus purveyors.
It can only be ignorance .
Ever heard anyone say " I'm having a great life gee it's terrific being so ignorant". Sounds stupid but thats where they are at unfortunately .
The suggestion that the current refugees are "The Rich" because they paid 15 grand for the privilege of risking their life in a old tramp from their homeland across the Indian Ocean , a measure of their desperation .

One of my Dr's is a Sri Lankan as is his wife he is a Muslim his wife a Buddhist , I have had the privilege dining with them in their home , let me tell all that you don't know anything about Curry until you have done Sri Lankan .

Kevvie let them in I'm done with Chinese Grub .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 9:35:31 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
E.Sykes “People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal.”

If they have the intention to circumvent Australia’s Migration legislation they are pursuing an illegal action and attempting to illegally enter Australia”Illegal” is the appropriate adjective … – regardless the spin you would like to give it.

Leigh “No illegals should set foot in Australia, ever!”

Exactly – ship illegal entrants back and let them wait in queue to be objectively reviewed, examined and tested, along with others who are patiently waiting for due process to occur and who are probably more deserving of the limited allocation of refuges visas for which these “illegals migrants”, who are simply trying to queue jump by illegal means.

To be honest.. attempting illegal entry should be an action which forfeits the right of any future entry on the basis of bad character.

Stezza “However, I think the main debate centers around how we distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal immigrants.”

I guess, someone who tries to gain access to Australia using illegal means answers your reasonable and valid concern (ie – paying a smuggler to bring one to Australia is the clue to any refugee versus illegal status).

Spin doctor hits the nail on the head.

blairbar: Concerning CJ Morgan as “ the most consistent purveyor of bile on this site “

Yes the resident moron holds that title.. and seems to wear it with honour but like most old dogs, his bark is worse than his bite…

To all those who think “open entry” is OK… we have migration legislation to protect the Australian community from criminals, those who suffer contagious diseases, those of poor character and who would be a burden on the public purse.

We have a limited genuine refugee intake.

Asutralia must never submit to the anarchy of those who choose to pay smugglers and criminal gangs to suit their own selfish perceptions of “entitlement”.

There can be no “entitlement” without first complying with an "obligation".

The “obligation” is to submit to Australia’s Migration processes.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 2:24:44 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 won't hold my breath waiting for blairbar to castigate Col for his gratuitous insult.

Since Col seems decidedly thick when it comes to asylum seekers, I'll just remind him that:

(a) It is not illegal for asylum seekers to enter Australia by whatever means, by virtue of our status as a signatory to the UN Convention.

(b) Asylum seekers who make it here are screened for health problems and character checks, and also tho check the veracity of their claims to be bona fide refugees - the argument is whether or not they should be imprisoned while those processes occur.

(c) There is no queue.

You haters might eventually learn that repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. But I won't hold my breath on that either.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 7:20:19 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
People rabbiting on about the 1951 Convention don't seem to understand that the thing is 58 years old. It was fine for displaced persons after the war. It was fine for a generation who did the right thing and waited patiently to be relocated. The types we are talking about these days are of entirely different cultures to us, and their standards and mores are nothing like those of the people who came to Australia under the 1951 Convention. Those people, although some were in conflict with us during the war, thought and acted as we did.

The people now arriving here illegally (not very us for starters)haven't got a clue about life in the West. Most can't communicate in our language; most will never work here because they haven't got the skills or the language to communicate; most are lawless in the sense that, where they came from, you have to look after yourself and pretty much anything goes.

Prattling on about an outdated refugee convention - which most of the the countries of the illegals and refugees didn't sign - is unmitigated rubbish. Most of the people who refer to the parts of this irrelevant document which suit them don't understand it in total, and the thing simply wasn't meant to allow and encourage the country shopping and swapping that is going on now.

I'm not a gambler, but I'd bet on what I think is a sure thing: few, if any, Western countries would sign a modern equivalent of the 1951 Convention.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 7:27:15 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
Morgan,

Haven't you got anything better to do than rubbish other posters?

I have been the target of your ignorant abuse as much as anyone; but, haven't you noticed that it has made no difference, knob-head?

You are a sad little man who even complains about the 'racism' of his customers. What is your business, by the way? Corner match box and cigarette card seller?

With your attitude to your fellow Australians, I'd be surprised if you made a living. You are the last person who should be dealing with the public.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 7:33:33 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
About the recently arrived asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, please try and be dry-eyed and rational about and consider the following:
1) All these Tamils have relatives and friends and business connections in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, the homeland of Tamils.They have been on visiting terms all these years.
2) India is merely a short crossing from Jaffa. It takes less than half a day and is very safe and frequently used by shipping.
3)Australia is hundreds of kms away across some very rough seas.Shipping is seen very occasionally in the vastness of the Bay of Bengal.It makes for very dangerous passage. It doesnt make sense that if you are indeed fleeing to safety from persecution you would choose to take the extremely dangerous route to Australia where there are far fewer Tamils.
4 There are hundreds if not thousands of Tamils happily employed in business and government jobs in the south. They arent facing persecution and imprisonment or being murdered. The word "genocide" has been used by the boat people to describe their fears. What genocide?

The civil war that has cost so many lives has been caused by Tamils who were determined to tear the country to pieces to carve out a state of its own, as if Sri Lanka deserved this fate. They created the war to create their own political ends so should they now be rewarded for their failed enterprise? IT IS NOT AS THOUGH THEY DONT HAVE A PLACE OF THEIR ORIGINS TO RETURN TO NOW THAT THEY HAVE LOST THEIR GAMBLE!! THAT PLACE IS MUCH NEARER TO THEM THAN AUSTRALIA IS.SO
WHERE SHOULD THEY RIGHTLY GO?
Why dont they go there? Is it because there's no Medicare and CentreLink there ?

socratease

socratease
Posted by socratease, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:41:52 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
Thank you Socratease for providing some historical background on the Tamils.

Puts a whole different perspective on the Tamil refugee situation doesn’t it. Why has the Australian media failed to report any of these facts? Typical of the lazy reporting of the media who often just use the immediate sensation headlines but never bother to do any homework on the real background of these overseas conflicts. It’s no wonder there is such a conflict over this between the Australian people because the media has failed to fully inform them once again.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 11:03:51 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
So all these people are paying 15 grand for a ticket on a leaky boat?

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to grab their passports and fly in on QANTAS or are there other factors involved?

I suppose they could wait the expected 10 years in a camp somewhere until it's "their turn" or just stroll into the nearest foreign embassy and ask for asylum that way.
Maybe desperate circumstances make people take desperate measures.
How far would you go if it was you?

Realistically, anybody with access to that much money in those societies can't be too interested in coming here just to cash-in on Medicare and Centrelink benefits.

If you want to blame the media for anything it's for perpetuating the politically contrived "crisis" that's being used to divert attention away from Turnbull's problems.

We are not in any imminent danger nor are there any evil hordes waiting to descend on us in vast fleets and destroy our society.

Sure, forget compassion if it doesn't suit but how about a little perspective?
Posted by rache, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:57:52 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
rache
you are missing the point.They are TAMILS .
Tamil Nadu in southern India is a stone's throw away.It is the homeland of all Tamils of this world! They've been coming and going there to visit relatives and friends and business partners all these years. If they fear persecution why risk life by paying exhorbitant sums to snake heads only to get a passage across very treacherous waters of The Bay of bengal on a leaky boat and try to get to Australia?

socratease
Posted by socratease, Thursday, 22 October 2009 1:12:01 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
It's unsurprising that the refugee-bashers are now resorting to ever more offensive and mendacious tactics in their efforts to discredit refugees who travel to Australia by boat in order to seek asylum.

For example, we have an entire post of distorted or plainly untrue factoids from socratease.

1. Tamils have been living in Sri Lanka since at least the second century BCE. Many would have no connection beyond language and ethnicity to Indian Tamils.

2. India is not a signatory to the UN Convention and has no legal obligation to grant asylum to refugees as Australia does.

3. If people have been forced from their homes and are being persecuted it makes a lot of sense for them to try and re-establish their lives in a stable country that is signatory to the UN Convention. Clearly, they consider the dangerous sea journey safer than remaining where they are - which is an indication of the dire straits they are in.

4. India is currently considering whether to grant residency to the tens of thousands of Tamil refugees who have sought refuge there, but is under no legal obligation to do so. The 'genocide' that the refugees fear is well-founded in the extensively reported inhumane actions of the Sinhalese victors in the civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/16/rather-than-feed-xenophobia-rudd-should-push-diplomacy/

Thanks for that rather intemperate spray, Leigh. You've demonstrated quite nicely my comment that you are a truly hateful person. I won't hold my breath waiting for blairbar to admonish you either.

Incidentally, what would a pensioned-off public servant know about running a business? Match boxes and cigarette cards? You really are showing your age, old chap. Perhaps you should join a bowling club, attend basket weaving classes or engage in some other activity commensurate with your diminished intellectual capabilities.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 6:49:44 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
CJ Morgan, I’ve gone back over your posts on this and other related threads in an effort to try to understand the point you are trying to make and the basis for your perspective.

I’ve (so far) not been subjected to the sort of venom you and other posters exchange; perhaps there is some background there of which I’m not aware. You are clearly passionate and compassionate about refugees which are to your credit.

Without providing any more links, would you be willing to state your position on some of the points upon which some consensus might be reached?

1. Does it matter to you what terminology is used to describe boat people and if so why?
2. Given that the UNHCR estimates some 15 million refugees/asylum seekers currently, how do you personally feel about those who can afford to bypass the UNHCR?
3. Why do you think there are people who deserve the tag “refugee bashers” and how do they earn that title?
4. Do you feel we should accept boat people into Australia as refugees and if so what pro’s and con’s would you anticipate for them and us?
5. Are the current Tamil refugees any different to other refugees and if so why?
6. Our government seems to be trying to be humane on the one hand whilst not seeking to encourage more boat people on the other. What proposals would you put forward?

You and I have so far avoided some of the nastier attributes of OLO debates and I would prefer to keep it that way. I genuinely look forward to your responses.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:19:14 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
"Yes the resident moron holds that title.. and seems to wear it with honour but like most old dogs, his bark is worse than his bite"
CJ yes Col Rouge's comment was out of place. You are certainly no moron.

"I have been the target of your ignorant abuse as much as anyone; but, haven't you noticed that it has made no difference, knob-head"
Not having seen a photo of you CJ I am not sure what you find offensive in Leigh's statement.
Posted by blairbar, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:09:50 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
CJ Moron “(a) It is not illegal for asylum seekers to enter Australia by whatever means, by virtue of our status as a signatory to the UN Convention.”

It is illegal to attempt to circumvent the migration processes, which have been enacted as a matter of Australian LAW

“the argument is whether or not they should be imprisoned while those processes occur.”

Until credentials and worthiness is determined, we place the greater Australian community at serious and avoidable risks if diseased and criminally inclined potential terrorists are allowed to roam freely through our streets.

“there is no queue”

There is a quota and when the quota is full .. those who are left are stuck in a queue…

“You haters…”

I hate no one. Not even poor examples of sub-humanity, like you.

I further count several Sri Lankans among my closest friends.

I just expect those who arrive in Australia to either submit to the same regime for acceptance as I had to submit to or be seen to qualify as a “real refugee” and all the “illegal economic opportunists”, who pay Indonesian smugglers thousands of dollars to be shipped here illegally, be barred from ever entering Australia.

Now CJ Rover run away and find somewhere quiet where you can lick yourself I trust you remember what I am referring to….. woof, woof.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:01:39 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
Hi spindoc - we recently discussed nearly of the issues raised by your questions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2899. I figure since that's an internal link at OLO, you may deign to read it. Frankly, I really couldn't be bothered going over the same stuff again and again.

In my first post to that thread, I somewhat presciently wrote:

<< I think that Australia should increase the number of refugees we accept under our Humanitarian Programme and reduce to zero the number of applicants accepted under the skilled migration and other immigration programs. We should also negotiate with the Indonesian and/or Malaysian governments in order to radically increase our capacity to process offshore applications for asylum.

I also think that the beleaguered and ineffectual Opposition will try and exploit the increased numbers of asylum seekers by returning to the inhumane tactics of the Howard regime, that appealed to the widespread latent xenophobia and/or racism of many Australians - such as we see expressed by some of the usual suspects in this forum.

It will be ugly. >>

If you take the time to read through it, you'll see that I made some effort to explain patiently and politely my views on asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat.

However, I don't recall that discussion addressing Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers specifically. One major difference between the Tamils and other recent asylum seekers is that they are fleeing internment camps created by their own government, to which UNHCR has had no access. There is therefore not even the pretence of a "queue" for them to jump.

I'd post a link, but you asked me not to.

Col, you're a truly odious person. However, I'm not going to play with you about asylum seekers - the issue is too important. Bye.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:35:38 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
Same Age-old precipitator of war. Tribe migrates to country of other tribe, 200years later demand separate state or country. Thus begins the Tamil -Sri Lakan 20 year war.
Now people from this same tribe(Tamils) want to migrate to another country as refugees.
The question is in 200years will they again demand a separate state or country.

World War 1- Serbs who had migrated to Germany kill the German Crown Prince or some similar identity (sorry don’t feel like looking it up at the moment) The German army was sent to deal with the Serb community, who then called in the tribe they had originally migrated from to defend them. That tribe was the Russians. Once Russia and Germany started fighting, other countries were pulled into the war , including Britain to honour treaties with allies,of course then Australia was obliged to come in because of it’s allied treaty with Britain as well.

World War 1- began because of aggression between two tribes over who was in control, same as the Tamil conflict.

World War 2- precipitated by two tribes who could not live together in Germany. The Jews didn’t help matters by forming a huge religious tribe who did not wish to intergrate with the Germans. The Germans too treated the Jews with tribal hostility. The reason the Germans invaded Poland also goes back to tribal hostility over land starting back in the 1300s when Germany ruled the whole of the Austrian Area.
My point being that both World War 1 and World War 2 are beaconlights as to the dangers of immigration refugees included.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:35:47 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
sharkfin, there's been a significant Tamil population on the island of Sri Lanka for more than 2000 years - but don't let mere facts get in the way of your grossly simplistic "tribal" theory.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:03:04 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
So,CJ Morgan, if the Tamils have been living in Sri Lanka for over 2000 years wasnt it because they had been allowed and even welcomed by the majority of Sinhalese population who now had to pay the price for the sheer political ingratitude of Tamils who never really integrated fully into the island community but began to tear the country apart in a 20 year civil war in which so many innocent Sinhalese had to die. This is not a simplistic statement of the fact of history. It must be said that there are many Tamils in the south who never really supported the civil war. It was sheer political adventurism and opportunism. These Tamils were massively supported by Tamils in Indian state of Tamil Nadu from where the Tamils originally hailed. They have relatives and friends and business connections still there., So why dont they go there for asylum/ Could it be because 1) there's no CentreLink and medicare there?
2)because they know how to exploit the soft politics which they can exploit.Rudd thought he could show up Howard'ds hard stand as inhuman but now he finds himself having to take similar steps himself. He isnt half mad at these Tamils for showing him up as being naive and weak. he has misread the entire historical play before his very eyes.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Saturday, 24 October 2009 8:49:32 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
Hi CJ, thanks for the measured response, very condescending, but measured. I went through the OLO discussion to which you referred and I can’t find any answers to the questions I asked of you. You did, sort of, attempt Q5 on the Tamil issue but you have still not given any indication for the “basis” for your perspectives which was what I was trying to understand.

Maybe you just don’t wish to go there, that’s OK. Not sure I really expected you to anyway. I’ll leave it there.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 25 October 2009 8:37:12 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
Hi spindoc. Sorry to seem condescending - perhaps exasperated might be a better term?

The 'basis' for my position on asylum seekers is quite simply human compassion and decency towards others. I'm not a religious person of any description, but I'm a strong believer in the so-called "Golden Rule", i.e. do unto others etc. As opposed to the "I'm alright Jack, stuff you" approach that seems to be the 'basis' for most of the refugee-bashing that goes on in this forum and elsewhere.

Socratease - history's not your strong point, is it?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 October 2009 8:56:18 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
CJ

'Do unto others' could be totally undermined by any group of people who decide to do only what is best for them and stuff all the others rules for civility.

Like queue jumping...

I have not a desire to see the values of others imposed upon me, nor mine on others. And you suggesting I should apply your 'golden rule' is presumptuous and arrogant. It smacks of your 'I'm alright Jack, stuff you' attitude.

Take a little while to get your head around it ... it's indicative of a quite old Australian attitude ... stoic independence and an hints of an 'up yours' theme.

;-)
Posted by keith, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:19:50 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
keith: << 'Do unto others' could be totally undermined by any group of people who decide to do only what is best for them and stuff all the others rules for civility.

Like queue jumping... >>

Firstly... THERE IS NO QUEUE. Unequivocally so in the case of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees.

Secondly, desperate circumstances make for desperate measures to escape them. Your attempt to twist the 'Golden Rule' doesn't reflect at all well on you.

Be honest, keith. You don't really believe the crap you wrote in your last post, do you? Rather, you're desperately trying to make any specious argument you can to justify treating these wretched people inhumanely.

You know, "I'm alright Jack" etc.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:32:52 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
C J Morgan<there’s been a significant Tamil population on the island of Sri Lanka for over 2000years but don’t let mere facts get in the way of your grossly simplistic tribal theory.>

As Socratease points out the number of years be it 200 or 2000years makes not one bit of difference to my theory that the 20year Tamil war, waged by the Tamils for a separate country in Sri Lanka was the end result of having two big tribes wanting control in one country. These kind of conflicts don’t have a time frame they can fester for centuries. It makes immigration (the taking of refugees included) something that needs to be looked at with a serious assessment of long term future consequences.

I have said before when people say how well multitribalism is working in Australia that you can’t make that judgement in such a short number of years because sometimes simmering hostile undercurrents don’t reach flashpoint until quite a lot of generations in the future when something like the huge growth
in population or severe economic hard times , failure to intregrate ,issues of control ( a la IRA type issues) results in violent attacks or conflict between tribes,(ethnic groups).
This is unlike the simplistic view of people like C J Morgan, that all you have to do is take people in and they will always love you and never turn on you in any way
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:56:36 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
Well after much reading and going around in circles I do not think it in the best interests of Australia or Sri Lanka for Australia to accept refugee claims from the country at this time. There appears sufficient evidence for some international commentary to suggest the LTTE have not been defeated, just increasing their efforts offshore in countries like Canada and Australia. So the war machine moves offshore but does not die. The protest march in Toronto, where women and children wre used as human shields in cause for concern.

The fact even some non members of LTTE actively engage in funding and do not deny support is cause for concern. However even more concerning are claims Tamils that refuse to support fundraising or activities in Australia are cut off from the community and left isolated from the support group.

I agree with Andrew Bartletts's suggestion that the key is to pressure Sri Lanka so that transparency of the post war process will succeed in ruling out excuse...or requirement for this type of journey. However very fragile relations as the actions of the Tamil Tiger supporters in Canada and thier heavy handed pressure tactics resulted in the severance of ties between Canada and Sri Lanka.

This problem will fester unless treated on home soil and meanwhile our ignorance is pushing Sri Lanka into the arms of Iran.

So though there could be valid claims on these boats I still cannot find any evidence that they could not have simply boarded a flight. Sri Lanka does not appear to really want them to stay. Those in screening camps are the ones most likely to be in the LTTE and those in IDP camps hardly likely to have a spare $15,000 in their pocket.

Does not add up as valid but we are nt skilled in detecting such people that have documentation.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 25 October 2009 10:25:31 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
*THERE IS NO QUEUE.*

Yes there is a queue CJ. The Dept of Immigration clearly have
a method of determining, who is next, when it comes to their
intake of 13000 people a year. Some are taken from areas like Burma,
Laos etc, people who would not have the money to pay anybody.

So the Dept of Immigration runs the queue. Just because you don't
see people standing in line, does not mean that there isn't one.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 25 October 2009 10:34:30 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
Although a signatory to the UN convention for refugees we are not obligated to accept war criminals, especially those still active in terrorist organisations as defined by the UN. It is apparent that western countries do have have the skills to detect. Canada reported that even if they do identify claims as being from LTTE does not necessarily mean they can be deported. Claims must be propcessed by the Un which has a far greater integrity and accuracy that our courts.

They are highly trained to pass muster. Best to offer hand of assistance to Sri Lanka and try to work for a humanitarian end that does not facilitate further bloodshed on that country's soil.

Also as they have commercial dealing with al-Qaeda we need to look out for ourselves as well.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 25 October 2009 10:47:02 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
CJMoron “Col, you're a truly odious person……”

How strange … “odious” has lost its effect when included in a post from the loathsome and ineffectual it has been debased (like the currency) through its profligate over use… to say nothing of abuse coming from a putrid source does not qualify as valid

“…… However, I'm not going to play with you about asylum seekers - the issue is too important. Bye.”

He is either running away, with his tail between his legs…

knowing he lacks the intellectual rigor to debate against my view or

He is off to attend to the important matter of personal grooming… get your tongue ready, CJ…. woof woof.

CJ Moron “sharkfin, there's been a significant Tamil population on the island of Sri Lanka for more than 2000 years - but don't let mere facts get in the way of your grossly simplistic "tribal" theory.”

The Moron brings up another reason why people should not get visa's on demand" because they might well be unsuited to be accepted into Australia

This is another example of bow Multiculturalism does not work and why assimilation is the only solution.

Those who arrive in Australia for the purpose of a new life have to leave their past behind them and be prepared to assimilate.

- Something which (according to the Moron) the “Sri Lankan Tamils” have not been able to do in 2000 years and so they are not going to do it in Australia either..
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 26 October 2009 8:05:31 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
So where exactly should Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers go to "queue up", Yabby - given that UNHCR has hitherto been denied access to the internment camps in Sri Lanka?

TheMissus - I don't think I've heard anybody suggesting that we should accept war criminals from anywhere. I certainly wouldn't support such a suggestion. Of course, in the aftermath of a civil war it's quite possible that some could slip through - as they did after World War 2, for example.

Col - I'm not playing. Go and find someone else who wants to play your spiteful games with you.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 26 October 2009 9:19:00 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
CJ, most of them won't have to queue up at all, but will be able
to return to where they lived before the war ended in May.

Some of those areas need to be demined and services restored. That
will take a bit of time. Meantime some have already been released
from camps, to go and live with relatives.

Yes there are complaints about red tape and delays, but name me
a Govt where red tape and delays are not a problem.

There are millions of Tamils living in Sri Lanka, clearly being
a Tamil and living there, is quite possible.

Some of the terrorists who fought against the Govt will no doubt
need to flee. They could flee to India or Indonesia for instance.

But we know that some so called refugees have in fact been Sinhalese,
claiming persecution by Tamils.

I certainly don't think that Australia should be taking Tamil
terrorists as refugees.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 26 October 2009 12:59:02 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
Yabby,congratulations on a very good post.Yours is one of the few that is moderate and well-balanced and full of facts.

I'll add just one morfe to what I have alrready posted.

I am all for giving asylum to genuine asylum seekers who wish to have nothing more to do with their past. How do you separate the genuinine from the "sleeper" Elam Tigers going to ground here.They have made no secret of the fact that they concede that theyy lost the battle in Sri Lanks but for them the war is not over.They are merely re-arming and re-organizing from abroad.

All I'm saying is that we need to be ruthless when dealing with these experts in international intrigue and terrprism. Remem ber they gavee the world its first suicide bombers.

sopcratease
Posted by socratease, Monday, 26 October 2009 1:05:55 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
Now CJ

I am and have been very civil to you in our exchange of views. Why have you attacked me personally by suggesting I'm dishonest?

I find that offensive and think you should appoligise for your rudeness ... or are you applying your golden rule.

I won't I'll be rude back to you CJ, by calling you names or calling into question the honesty of your reasoning process.

CJ we all know there isn't a queue, we all know there is a process for applying for refugee status ... and as you accepted in another forum, for an orderly process it needs be overseas. ('...to establish some kind of fair and orderly offshore assessment facilities.' Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:04:35 PM. All is not well in the asylum : Comments
By Greg Barns, published 20/10/2009)

As for queue jumping by groups of people ... tell me ... don't you think that will undermine the operation of your golden rule? That's all I said. I didn't say there was a queue of refugees, you've simply jumped to that conclusion and then argued against your own conclusion!

Logic and experience of the underlying nature of Australians underpinned my last post... anger underpinned yours.
Posted by keith, Monday, 26 October 2009 1:33:15 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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