RStaurt would have us believe that the “passengers” on the Oceanic Viking were only ever naïve pawns .

He challenges us to provide contrary evidence –but when presented with it
i) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9668#156852
ii) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9668#156926
He ignores it.

In his own words preferring to “wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before [he ] found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land?”

Now, consider his --someone was blocking them-- argument:
Did local officials show opposition to the “passengers” (re-)landing –you bet!
Like most officials in Asia they didn’t relish the prospect of having foreigners relocated to their fiefdoms-- even if it was to Aussie funded facilities.

But these “passengers” had dealt with Indonesian officialdom before -- remember they had lived illegal in Indonesia for years!

Lack of popularity with local authorities had never fazed them previously –and, it didn’t faze them this time either.
Note some of their acts damningly highlighted in this article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pm-ke-rudds-indonesia-plan-all-at-sea-as-boatpeople-threaten-suicide/story-e6frg6nf-1225791914095
i)”they refused to give personal details to Indonesian immigration officials”
ii) “some had threatened to kill themselves
iii)”were prepared to die rather than be taken to Indonesia”
iv) had been co-ordinating tactics with the other sit-in boat at Merak ( who by the way were threatening to blow-up their ship!)
Hardly meek fearful types !

The reality is it wasn’t “bans” that were keeping them on the ship. It was the ships value as a blackmailing base. They came ashore only after they had extorted suitable concessions
And they didn’t disembark enmass--- but in two distinct groups, days apart.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/20-sri-lankans-ready-to-leave-boat-20091112-icld.html
“The head of Indonesia's department of immigration, Basyir Ahmad Barmawi, said: ‘'There are 20 Sri Lankans on board who said they are willing to be placed in detention’.''

And when they went ashore, they had to be kept separate from other detainees who were jealous of their special conditions
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-staff-were-involved-in-oceanic-viking-deal-20091116-ii9x.html
“A source at the Tanjung Pinang detention centre said the Sri Lankans had been separated from other detainees out of fear they would be targeted for receiving special treatment”.

All of which puts a lie to RStuarts huddled fearful mass scenario/concoction.

rstuart: "If challenged on a fact I provide a link"

Yabby: "I respond to serious, intelligent questions, not game playing."

Odd that Yabby. So do I. But you have to figure out whether the other person is playing a game. It can be hard to tell. So when someone claims something is true that is new to me, I insist they provide had evidence.

A statement that "the refugees refused to disembark" isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship. Even the Prime Ministers have been known to make statements similar to "the children were thrown overboard", without attribution that later turn out to be wrong. So a bland statement from a journalist doesn't cut it. It must have a source, a date, a place - something to anchor it to reality.

You refuse to provide that anchor. Not once, but over and over again. So by my reckoning you are playing a game. Bronwyn always maintained that of course, but me being the pendant I am needed hard evidence. Well, I have it now.

To me it is a bit worse than that. If you aren't discussing reality, you are discussing a fantasy. Yours in this case. That is not something I enjoy doing, so it is goodbye from me.

RStuart says:
--“A statement that "the refugees refused to disembark" isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship. ---Hogwash!

-- You [ Yabby] refuse to provide that anchor. Not once, but over and over again. So by my reckoning you are playing a game. Bronwyn always maintained that of course, but me being the pendant I am needed hard evidence. Well, I have it now.” ----What childishness !

RStuart demands standards of evidence from his opponents, he does not, and can not meet.

Apparently it’s kosher for him to cherry pick journalists reports when they suit : “ Would you believe I had to wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before I found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land?”.But it’s not kosher for anyone else to present contrary journalistic opinion.

But he is right about one thing, it was about fantasy –his fantasy– a weird belief he harbours that he is the final arbiter of what is right and reasonable.

*isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship.*

Well I grant you rstuart, that this is indeed a clever ploy to get
out of the hopeless situation that you are in on this thread!

Desperate people will use desperate measures I suppose.

Fact is that correspondant after correspondant, reporting from
Indonesia on this story, claim that it's true. The Indonesian
Minister dealing with this issue claimed it was true, when
he appeared on Lateline.

Perhaps the ship's captain does indeed write a blog on the internet,
telling the world of his situation. Last I knew, he would report
to our Govt in private and not post his information on the internet,
for rstuart to be content. But of course moving goalposts around
is a common ploy, you are not the first to do it. Perhaps it will
save you further embarrasment on this thread, for your position
was hopeless.

In fact rstuart has not been able to show a single correspondant who
shares his concerns and claims. Not a link, nothing.

Bronnie of course admits to hardly reading the posts, so she did
what she commonly does on OLO, ie show her motherly concerns,
make a couple of claims and then flit away without further discussion.

Neither of you have been able to justify why a humanitarian programme
should not be focussed on the most needy and deserving, instead
of the wealthier and opportunistic. Its all heart on your sleeve
stuff.

Horus, thanks for your many great posts.

>>Neither of you have been able to justify why a humanitarian programme should not be focussed on the most needy and deserving, instead of the wealthier and opportunistic. Its all heart on your sleeve stuff.<<

Maybe I can help out there Yabby.

A humanitarian program should be focussed on those most deserving. In fact, Howard's approach to border protection made sure that refugees coming here who perhaps weren't as deserving as some others, soon became precisely that. So I think your argument falls over there.

The problem with taking migrants from refugee camps as you've suggested before is the potential problem governments can get into in terms of why did they pick person A and not person B (as there will be many more left behind than are taken). Once the government goes down that path, there could be a lot of pressure brought to bear on it to make exceptions. I think you know this and are hoping that will happen so that the weight of public opinion will kill such a scheme outright.

So, the Government hangs ten as it were and processes the relatively few arrivals that come here by boat and probably justifies it as helping those who self-select and take the risk to help themselves. To the Government, it's the least bad option politically.

BTW, you've yet to make the argument for why *none* that come here by boat are worthy of becoming Australian citizens.

*The problem with taking migrants from refugee camps as you've suggested before is the potential
problem governments can get into in terms of why did they pick person A and not person B*

What you are implying RobP, is that our Govt is too stupid to come up with a fair
system. Now I don’t have much respect for Canberra’s abilities, but I seemingly
give them more credit then you do! To come up with a fair system, would surely
not be rocket science.

Anyone with an ounce of reasoning skills, would have to admit that the debacle
of a system that we have now, is not only highly contradictory, but is also
the cause of much of the problems that we face.

On the one hand, we offer people a cushy Aussie lifestyle if they can
jump through the hoops and afford it, OTOH we make the hoops
as difficult as possible. Our PM preaches about the “evils of people smugglers”
when it is his Govt’s first prize that creates the people smuggling industry
in the first place! Hardly rational policy and Indonesia could well claim that
it is our fault, that thousands of potential applicants are in Indonesia,
aiming for gold. In other words, our policy is the cause of their problem.

So what we have is pain all around, caused by us. People would not risk
their lives and money, if none were getting through. For every one that
gets through, there are a whole bunch of desperate individuals who did
not make it. We give people hope, then destroy that hope. Hardly
rational.

Next we have the issue of the huge resources wasted, by our contradictory
policy. Add it all up and it would be huge money. Then the money wasted
by those to whom we have given hope and then fought off with sticks.

So it is my contention that the present debacle of a system is sadly bogged
down in politics, but what it needed is a bipartisan solution, for everyone’s
benefit, to solve this problem once and for all.