*this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".*

Ah rstuart, but that objective situation is open to subjective
opinion! I have had enough bleating hearts tell me that Afghanistan
is a dangerous place and that Sri Lanka is dangerous for Tamils.

On that basis a case can clearly be made, that all these people
deserve protection under the UN convention. As long as they are
not Indians, or Pakistanis, posing as Tamils or Afghans, in which
case there would be no "objective situation". I remind you that
the UNHCR suggests that if unshure, to err to the benefit of the
applicant.

*and it was being compared to the Indonesian figure of 10%, which was for all types.*

AFAIK nearly all asylum seekers in Indonesia opt to come by boat.
A few might fly, but hardly more then a handfull. So the UNHCR were
basically checking out the same types of applicants as those
who sail to Australia. No Chinese Falung Gong applicants etc.

*No, but as it happens the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either.*

Not so, they threatened to stay on the ship, until they were taken
to their destination of choice, then complained about treatment by
the crew. A month later, they finally got off, after being bribed
by the Govt. They made threats, you made no threats. At least
you admit that it was an attempted hijack.

As a matter of interest, "onshore asylum seekers" is a reference to
those who make it to the mainland. They are processed under the
Migration Act, unlike those processed on offshore islands, who
never made it to the mainland.

*Ruddock was also talking about boat arrivals to Australian and he had banned lawyers and appeals.*

Not as far as I am aware, for under the Migration Act, they still
have those rights today, if they make it to the mainland. What
he did was come up with the Pacific solution, which means the
Migration Act does not apply to excised territories. That is
exactly what the HRC and the bleating hearts are now on-about.

Yabby: "On that basis a case can clearly be made, that all these people deserve protection under the UN convention."

Wild speculation. Wild because the fishermen tried to make that case and as your article pointed out, failed. Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.

I didn't expect you to resort to this sort of drivel instead of conceding the point.

Yabby: "AFAIK nearly all asylum seekers in Indonesia opt to come by boat."

Lets just stick to what we can show is true. I don't trust your "AFAIK" as far as I can kick it, and I imagine the feeling is mutual.

Yabby: "they threatened to stay on the ship"

Assuming they did (you have a link?), it would have been as effective as me threatening to stay on the bus. I imagine the response from the bus driver would have been "thanks for letting me know, I'll arrange for the police to greet us when we arrive". If, when we arrived, the police say the council rules require the bus to make short detours like I requested, then asked "do you still want to go home?" the situation changes completely. Suddenly I am in control. This is pretty much the situation the 78 found themselves in. And you claim this remarkable turn of events turns it into a hijack? Utter nonsense.

rstuart: "If [Ruddock] really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations."
Yabby: "the UNHCR of course does not have to contend with a whole pile of lawyers and appeals, as is the case with onshore asylum seekers"
Yabby: "Not as far as I am aware, for under the Migration Act, they still have those rights today, if they make it to the mainland"

True. But we are discussion boat arrivals, and stuff all made it to the mainland before being assessed. This makes any discussion about appeals and whatnot a best a complete red herring. At worst, see my first response above.

This is RStuart at his twaddling best:

“No, but as it happens the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either. The ship didn't deviate from its normal route - it always intended to take them to Indonesia, which is what happened. They did threaten to harm themselves, but even if you are desperate to count that as a "threat", it was ignored. So at best you have "attempted hijack". They didn't refuse to get off. They are illegals remember, without papers, so the Indonesians have to let them disembark. But Indonesia says only if they wish to - knowing full well they had just hopped into a leaky boat with bung steering to escape the place. What would you have them do Yabby - tell and obvious and transparent lie?”

---“ the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either”
NO, they effectively put it out of service –god knows what it cost the Australian taxpayer for the ships upkeep alone, let alone the special services we supplied the occupiers.

--“The ship didn't deviate from its normal route - it always intended to take them to Indonesia”
The ships original route didn’t envisage rescuing their ( self sabotaged ) ship nor returning to port in Indonesia.

---“They did threaten to harm themselves…[but] it was ignored”
Does anyone really believe that that threat played no part in authorities softly-softly approach, or the inducements’ later offered!

--“They didn't refuse to get off. They are illegals remember, without papers”
This takes the cake!
We are asked to believe they didn’t know they had to get off the ship--apparently they mistook it for their new home!
We are asked to believe that after having snuck into Indonesia without papers , and after having lived-in Indonesia illegally for years, they had suddenly developed a conscience about not being properly documented.

--"So at best you have "attempted hijack”
No, you have an advertisement flashing to the rest of the world –Aussie politicians are gutless ---come-on down and give it a go

*Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.*

Ah not so rstuart. I remind you that 30 or so Tamils have just
won first prize of a cushy life in Aus, because their hijack and
subsequent blackmail of the Australian Govt paid off handsomely!

The war and that it is over, did not even come into the discussion.

As I pointed out, we are suckers, perhaps you should admit
it now, that it is so frigging obvious. The big losers are
of course taxpayers, who foot the bill for the whole disaster.

Even those rejected, cost us a fortune, some flown home in
special chartered jets.

*Lets just stick to what we can show is true.*

Rstuart, I thought the point was valid. If you have evidence that
large numbers of them fly here from Indonesia, please show it.

*it would have been as effective as me threatening to stay on the bus.*

Did you threaten to stay on the bus? No? So your comparison is
laughable.

*True. But we are discussion boat arrivals, and stuff all made it to the mainland before being assessed.*

Exactly, because Govts have changed tactics, much to the disgust of
the bleating hearts. The whole saga had become a joke, Ruddick had
got it right all along.

Yabby: "I remind you that 30 or so Tamils have just won first prize of a cushy life in Aus, because their hijack and subsequent blackmail of the Australian Govt paid off handsomely!"

You managed to combine a fair bit of rubbish and spin in that one sentence Yabby - well done! If it was 30, then that is 38% acceptance - a definite improvement on the 90%, and even better than our acceptance rate of people who arrive by air. And this is a bad outcome? If true, it was a very poor effort from 78 given the strong negotiating position they found themselves in. I agree they should never have been in that negotiating position of course. When Indonesia said no to allowing them to get off, they should have been taken to Christmas Island for normal processing. But I am repeating myself - as I said ages ago they would extract favoured treatment and I thought this was a bad thing.

And as for hijack and blackmail - you still haven't managed to explain how answering the question "do you wish to leave" honestly is either.

Yabby: "Did you threaten to stay on the bus? No? So your comparison is
laughable."

How does that effect the analogy? You don't give any reasoning, instead justifying your position with a laugh. A high pitched, nervous one perhaps?

Yabby: "The whole saga had become a joke, Ruddick had
got it right all along."

Since Rudd has it right all along, I presume the 90% acceptance rate was right all along as well. (Just a reminder - it was the 90% acceptance we were discussing, and now you say Rudd got it right.) And given we still process them offshore without access to lawyers and appeals, I presume we still have it right. Excellent. We are in almost in agreement then.

*If it was 30, then that is 38% acceptance - a definite improvement on the 90%*

You are digging yourself an ever deeper hole here Rstuart, but its
fun to watch :). I remind you that the rest might still be
accepted, so its far from over. But you seemingly have no problems
with the fact that the war is now over, something which you
previously conceded, is now a major factor.

So the sensible thing to do is not give in to blackmail, as you
suggested, but transport the whole lot back to Sri Lanka.
Any who first chose to disembark in Indonesia, could have done
so.

There would of course have been loud wails of protest from the
bleating hearts, but the message would soon have spread around
Sri Lanka, that Australia is not a gullible and soft touch
anymore. That is how you stop the boats.

*You don't give any reasoning, instead justifying your position with a laugh.*

So on one hand, we have a little old man meekly getting off a bus
at the bus stop, OTOH we have 78 refusing to get off a ship for
a month, accusing the crew of mistreating them, so things clearly
got nasty and you can't see the difference? How much time and money
did the bus lose because of you, rstuart? What about taxpayers
and the Ocean Viking? Come clean, your analogy is purely ridiculous!

One was a request, the other a hijack. For a month, the Ocean
Viking could not go about its business.

Yes Ruddick got it right. He changed the 90% and stopped the boats.
Rudd just caved in to blackmail, as we have all observed.