Myth Busters Report [ subtitle: debugging RStuart’s befuddled logic ]

RStuart says: “You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence?... I find it hard to square your claim with the fact that we have taken up to 2 years to verify some claims”

The trick here RStuart is your use of the qualifier SOME.
[I’ve told the readers before, RStuart has a real problem distinguishing “some” from “all” – Have a geeza at his earlier posts about Sri Lanka , he implies ALL Tamils were incarcerated when he should have known it was SOME –and he still hasn’t corrected it]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#76005

PS RStuart : SOME people live to 130, too!

RStuart says: “We prevent access to lawyers and media http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm”
Read the attached reference to Gerry Hand, and then tell us that one about preventing access to lawyers, again. ROFL
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#76003
And anyone who thinks they don’t have media access must have been living in a box, the asylum seekers advocates/ silks are some the most media savvy hacks around.

RStuart says: “Only for some warped definition of hijack.. The boat people refused to get off when asked. Force wasn't used, they didn't take control of the vessel, they steal anything and they didn't force it do go somewhere else”
In modern parlance to hijack means: to usurping control.
Though for dinosaurs like yourself, bought up on Erol Flynn movies, if you were to study the transcript of The Tamper incident –you’d find that the rescued asylum seekers did indeed force a change in the vessels direction/destination.

It may be a fun game of semantics for RStuart, but I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of needy could have been fed or housed with the money wasted pandering to the very discriminating guests who --hijacked--the Oceanic Viking.

Come now RStuart, admit it, you’ve been imbibing in your heritage beverage between posts, haven’t you---I mean, how else would you have such addled thinking?

*so now do you agree we will end up taking refugees TPV's in?*

That depends on the Govt and the politics of the moment. If a Govt
thinks that they can win a few votes somewhere, all principle is
commonly thrown out the window.

* You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence*

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html

Ok go to section 8.1, to get an idea how it works. There are really
two systems at play, onshore, then excised territories, where
a different standard applies. This was one way for the Govt to
get around all those legal appeals, which blocked up the courts.

At the end of the day, an asylum seeker needs to tell a story which
fits in with the UN Convention, that they fear persecution because
of etc. The onus is on the Govt to prove that they are lying.
You try writing to Afghanistan for credible information! The asylum
seeker only needs to tell the story, not provide documented evidence.

Onshore asylum seekers can indeed appeal to the courts.

*Only for some warped definition of hijack*

They tried to force the captain to sail for Australia! Just because
they never pulled a gun, does not mean that it was not a hijack.

Yabby: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html

That is a good link Yabby, better than any I had found on the subject. Unfortunately it still doesn't resolve the issue we are discussing one way or the other. I gather the person seeking refugee status filling in a statement of claims, saying why they should be considered a refugee. Then some DIAC officer (quote) "assesses their refugee claims and makes a determination". That last step could be anything from just accepting what is on the form, to insisting the refugee makes verifiable statements on the form that are then verified.

In any case, I suspect verifiable claims most of us are likely to accept (like "I come from village X, and belong to group Y. 10 people form group Y were killed and tortured in my district") you would reject along the lines of "well other people managed not to be tortured there, why can't you?"

Yabby: "At the end of the day, an asylum seeker needs to tell a story which fits in with the UN Convention"

Your link doesn't say that, Yabby. The UNHCR doesn't say one way or the other. We could, and I agree should, demand verifiable information, like "give the name and contact details of your Mullah, school teacher, people you worked for" and take whatever time is required to contact those people. As for whether we do that - who knows. But since they are detaining people for 6, 12 and sometimes 24 months if they aren't doing that, one wonders what they are doing that takes so much time.

Yabby: "They tried to force the captain to sail for Australia!"

They asked. He said no. I did the same thing with a bus recently. I was the only person on it, so I asked him to make a small detour. He said no. It seems by your definition I hijacked the bus.

*That last step could be anything from just accepting what is on the form, to insisting the refugee makes verifiable statements on the form that are then verified.*

Rstuart, all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case,
as it states in the UN Convention. There is no mention of verifiable
evidence in that. Here is a URL with some of the defintions.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html

What they do do, is check things like accents. When a Pakistani
applies, they can then challenge the claim, based on accent.
But the burden of proof remains with Australia, to show that the
story being told, is not accurate.

With your examples, you are making it up as you go along. It the
definitions of the Convention that matter, certainly in the case
of onshore asylum seekers.

*But since they are detaining people for 6, 12 and sometimes 24
months*

That would depend, if the case was reviewed by the RRT, then an
appeal to the Courts, yup that could stretch it out. That
HRC website I linked to yesterday, stated that very few are on
Xmas Island for more then 6 months. Only 15, IIRC.

*They asked. He said no. I did the same thing with a bus recently*

Nope, not the same thing. You did not move in with your family,
then camp on the bus for a month, until it took you where you wanted
to go. You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78, who
defied the captain and stopped him from returning to his normal
business. Big difference!

Yabby: "You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78, who defied the captain and stopped him from returning to his normal business. Big difference!"

Err he didn't take them to where they demanded to go, and they did accept that. He took them to another country, and asked that country if he could let them off there. The country said "only if they want to get off here". Given they had already said they didn't want to, things went downhill from that point.

Yabby: "Here is a URL with some of the defintions."

But not with any definitions that help.

Yabby: "all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case, as it states in the UN Convention."

Yes. But before relying on that statement to draw the conclusion we must allow anyone with a good story in, read paragraphs 193..205 in http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf

We get to ask whatever questions we like. We can use whatever methods we like to verify the answers. The only requirement is, after doing all that, we can not verify some answers we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Another way of saying the same thing is we are free to use whatever methods we like to remove that doubt.

And finally, there is a general requirement they supply a plausible, detailed and consistent story. Something lines "I came from a village in Afghanistan, but I don't remember is name or where it is, I don't remember the names of prominent people in it, I was in a religious sect but can't tell you the place of worship or the name of the priest, I was persecuted but can't tell you the names of others who were" just isn't going to wash.

Who's getting married? Yes, you all guessed it... congratulations to that sorry pair of furious battlers, rstuart and Yabby! Commiseration to the other suitors. Now, to show how much they really care, they've been practising hard, ferociously fighting like cats and dogs (as anybody who has followed this thread will surely know), just like any long married couple. Holed up at home, sweating over a hot Word doc, they've honed their nastiest posting skills, arguing off several other contenders (we also know). When will they tie the knot (online, naturally)?