Ok, a philosophical question :)

World population keeps growing at 80 million a year, as we push the
limits of the global human population. Yet climate change suggests
that this process could well land up causing hundreds of millions of
people to seek a new home, due to these changes, rising sea levels
etc. If they run out space elsewhere, they will want to come here.

The green/left end of politics, are those protesting loudest about
our past refugee policy, the fact that we should limit migration,
etc.

Yet at some future point the time may well come, when people like
Bob Brown and others, have to make a tough decision. If a global
catastrophe happens, do we take 20 million refugees or leave them
where they are? Do we save Australia and our environment, or do
we save 20 million or so refugees?

What comes first? Australia and Australians, or our compassion for
our fellow human beings?

Given that we refuse to address the continueing growing world
human population, this could well be a critical decision in the
future, unless we start to address the ever growing global human population now.

Yabby they can come on a few conditions.Firstly we have enough food for our own,secondly they abide by our laws and thirdly they get sterilised before they get in.

Anyway Yabby,if it comes to that WW3 will happen and billions will be killed.China and Russia will embark on some human culling to ensure their own survival.

Yabby
the problem is... knowing the 'line'.......

Where compassion will be self destroying it is meaningless. It's a matter of degree, and how to decide if we consider the following 'destructive':

-Dilution of our values.
-Usurping of our culture.
-Competition in language.

and many more I'm sure.

One mans 'compassion' is another mans 'cultural suicide'. Who is to decide which is correct? How is to decide how much cultural suicide we are prepared to stomach ?

As Ros said to Frazier when he was geeing her up to do a cheerleader thingy for their program by asking "Who has the best talk show in Seattle"...Ros then goes into cheerleader mode and says "WE DO WE DO"

I think that is self explanatory.

Ok, so what would be the Bob Brown/Greens response?

Take forever more millions of refugees or ruin the Australian
environment? Are there any Greens who can answer that?

In my not so humble view....... GREENS....

along with various other cult like groups, like to portray themselves as the 'champion' of the migrant, refugee etc.. why ? SIMPLE.. "political advantage".

If people perceive you as 'on their side' they are more likely to vote for you. The Greens are horrible, but not stupid, they know that they don't need 'millions' of people to swing an election and gain the balance of power.. (which is their goal anyway)

So... championing the alledged "plite" of 'refugees' will have 2 impacts.

1/ The (mindless) bleeding heart element already here will be more likely to vote for them.
2/ Those who actually benefit will ultimately vote for them.

and after all that, we will be subjected to the 'imposed' immorality that the Greens try to persuade us is 'moral high ground'.. what rubbish.

Yabby, The Greens, and the Democrats, lost me in August 2001 when both Bob Brown and then Dems leader Natasha Soul-Destroyer came out in total opposition to Howard’s efforts to deal with the looming asylum seeker crisis, which was galvanised by the Tampa incident.

They had absolutely no idea of what would happen if thousands of desperate people had been allowed to move freely in society, no idea of the vital importance of strong border protection or of the great escalation in numbers of people that had mobilised towards Australia at the time, no appreciation of Australia’s commendable efforts to deal with refugee issues via it offshore programs and of its right to say emphatically NO to onshore asylum seekers, and in short, no sense of balance whatsoever.

I haven’t noticed any modification in the outlook from either party over the last six years.

So I’m not too concerned about how they might respond to your questions.

Yabby: "Take forever more millions of refugees or ruin the Australian
environment? Are there any Greens who can answer that?"

Obviously, the Greens are not in favour of accepting "millions of refugees" who will "ruin the Australian environment". Greens policies are designed to balance humanitarian obligations and responsibilities with the need to limit our population and economy to sustainable levels.

Notwithstanding Boazy's xenophobic babbling and Ludwig's tendency to draconian treatment of innocent victims, any responsible Australian political party must seek to achieve an appropriate balance between these competing concerns. At least the Greens have a policy that anticipates the likely eventuality of environmental refugees, unlike the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber 'major' parties.

Relevant Greens policies are located at

http://greens.org.au/about/policy/

Alright, now that I’ve got that off my chest, I’ll address your philosophical questions;

“…do we take 20 million refugees or leave them where they are?”

We most definitely do not take 20 million refugees.

“Do we save Australia and our environment, or do we save 20 million or so refugees?”

We save our societal coherence. That’s the most important thing. Quality of life and environmental health are vitally important, but in the first instance we’ve got to make sure that governance and the rule of law hold together. Otherwise we will have anarchy and a totally destructive free-for-all.

So we can only afford to take a very small number of refugees, perhaps in the order of a few thousand per annum. I have previously suggested that doubling the current intake to ~28 000 would be about the maximum we should accommodate.

But given the looming problems of peak oil, climate change, a major downturn in the economic boom and a steadily degrading environment and resource base, perhaps we should be taking none at all, and hunkering down in an all-out effort to reach sustainability and make sure that our society hangs together.

“What comes first? Australia and Australians, or our compassion for our fellow human beings?”

Our societal coherence comes first. That doesn’t mean we give up compassion. It means that we be very careful indeed about what compassion we can afford to show.

Ok, well I guess this will generate a few strong responses. So bring em on!!

CJ, there seems to be a glaring contradiction in the Greens policy;

‘Australia has an obligation to accept humanitarian migration including that resulting from climate change.’

and

‘Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to:

• ecological sustainability’

I’d suggest that we shouldn’t have any such obligation. If our society is really stressed, due to climate change, peak oil or whatever, then we are not going to be in a position to take ANY refugees.

And that is most likely going to be the case – that just when the pressure is really on to take in refugees, we will be least able to accommodate them without corrupting our own highly stressed social coherence.

“…Ludwig's tendency to draconian treatment of innocent victims, any responsible Australian political party must seek to achieve an appropriate balance…”

Well you’ve got the balance bit right. But not the ‘draconian’ bit. I’d love to know just what it is that you think is draconian about my approach and how you would go about achieving the necessary balance with what you would call a non-draconian approach.

Thanks for your posts, CJ and Ludwig. What I am trying to find out
is what do the Greens call balance?

What if the shoe was on the other foot and decades of drought and local famine make US the refugees.

Where would we go and who would have us? Would we expect salvation from anyone in particular or would we be prepared to die quietly at home?

Nice to see BOAZY waving the moral superiority flag of the paranoid faithful again.

rache, even with years of drought we produce enough food to well and truly feed ourselves. But I do get your point. Its very easy to moralise when you are not the one facing imminent death. I guess the answer would have to lie somewhere along the lines of "we take as many as we can without putting those that we take (or ourselves) at high risk". At the moment as Ludwig points out, we can probably only afford to take very few. As we get technological improvements that further improve our productivity, we may be able to increase those numbers significantly.

I apologise to the other posters for bringing this thread back to religion as well, but cant resist! BD: "Where compassion will be self destroying it is meaningless.".... ummmmm, didnt Christ agree to die (self-destroying) for the sake of compassion for others??

I think Rache is correct. Australia is going to be one of the worst affected countries and it is very likely that we will be unable to feed ourselves -- let alone have enough to drink. With rising sea levels and predicted storm surges, all coastal towns and cities are under threat and we will have refugees of our own. And when the oil runs out in a few years, our so-called tyranny of distance might cause the starvation of citizens living in remote areas. Not an inviting prospect for refugees.

Hi there Rache :)

well.. consider this, the PLO blew up airliners to get attention... now look at how much sympathy they have.. including the bleeding hearts.... who now conveniently ignore the huge exploding planes, the massacre of Israeli athletes.. etc...

What do I do ? Just speak colorfully. Woooooo now thats scary :)

The GREENS? good grief. They (thought their mini me CJ) parrot:

>>balance humanitarian obligations and responsibilities with the need to limit our population and economy to sustainable levels.<<

Now lets deconstruct this in terms of 'Political Opportunism'...

1/ "Humanitarian obligations" a vote winner with the migrants/former refugees. (but places pressure on our ecological sustainability)

2/ "Population and Economy to 'sustainable levels' " - a vote winner with the young yet naive traditional Aussies.

There is only one problem: 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. In opposition to each other. We are pretty much at saturation point now, here in Melbourne, I look to the next fall of rain like a man in the desert looks for the next Oasis. I monitor our water levels regularly and find we are 'snookered'
See THIS:
http://conservewater.melbournewater.com.au/content/storage.asp

Look realllllly closely at the start of 2006 and the end of 2007
Then see where we will BE at the end of 2008 with the same consumption and the same rain. Ok.. we will still be at around 40% if...we have GOOD rain. But if we had a year like 2006 or 1997 we would, to put it bluntly, be 'history'.

So much for 'sustainability' and 'more people' specially those caused by 'environmental' troubles. The only exception I'd make here is for Pacific Islanders. They aren't many. Bring em all here, (Darwin and Perth) Then...'finito'..no more.

Ludwig, I think your approach is draconian because you insist that the only way to deal with refugees is by detaining all asylum seekers, preferably offshore. I think that this is unduly harsh to innocent people who have already suffered deprivation and hardship that we in Australia can only imagine. It is simply wrong to incarcerate innocent men, women and children - particularly in the conditions that the current government deems satisfactory, but which drives the inmates literally mad. Most asylum seekers to Australia have been found to be genuine refugees in the end, so why punish innocent people unnecessarily?

Yabby, the Greens don't specify actual numbers, I think partly because the policy principles are in tension, and also that there is little consensus as to what the human carrying capacity of Australia is. There also seems to be little agreement as to what our humanitarian obligations and responsibilities constitute - note, for example Bob Geldof's comments about Australia's relative miserliness with respect to meeting foreign aid targets to which we have already agreed (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/youre-mean-geldof/2007/11/19/1195321674573.html).

I think Australia is morally lacking as a nation if we simultaneously subject refugees to draconian measures and renege on our commitments to providing foreign aid that might help ameliorate the conditions that produce refugees in the first place.

My personal view is that we're around Australia's carrying capacity right now, at the ridiculously high levels of consumption of energy and material goods to which we've recently become accustomed. I think that as climate change and other factors like energy depletion kick in over the coming century, we're inevitably going to see a decline in our per capita consumption of energy and material resources, so we might be able to accommodate more displaced persons than at current rates.

In the short term, I think that we should aim for net zero population growth. Within those parameters, I think that we should replace the economic (i.e. business/skilled) component of our immigration intake with refugees. Please note that these are my personal views, but I think they are generally in accord with those of most Greens.

So CJ, you would not detain asylum seekers at all. You’d allow them to move freely in society from the moment they first arrive? Or would you hold them in low security centres in our cities? What exactly is your point of balance on this?

There is a bunch of reasons why free movement or low security detention would be highly undesirable:

They are not all innocent. Innocence or more to the point refugee status, needs to be determined first, surely.

The detention system in Australia has arisen directly through our own experience with asylum seekers, starting off with no detention from which people absconded, progressing to detention with minimal security from which people absconded, and progressing to high walls and razor wire as an unfortunate but necessary means of keeping control over the situation.

It is the less honest, least-likely-to-be-found-to-be-refugees that would be the most likely to abscond

Tracking down desperate people who don’t want to be found, quite likely with the assistance of Australian elements, could be hugely expensive and quite alarming for all involved.

Having people who are not at all familiar with Australian society moving freely could be disastrous. It would only take one or two serious incidents of assault or whatever to galvanise opinion against any such free movement and towards a harsher treatment of all asylum seekers.

The deterrence factor is hugely important. If would-be asylum seekers get the message that they can come here and step straight out into Australia society, what do you think would happen? The ‘floodgates’ would open.

Ludwig, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the question of mandatory detention of asylum seekers.

I suppose we could deal with the supposed dangers you see even more effectively than via unjust incarceration. We could subject asylum seekers to harsher interrogation methods and torture in order to weed out the few who are not genuine. It wouldn't be very hard to establish our own mini-Gitmo on Nauru or Manus or somewhere.

We could sink their boats in the water, or at least leave them to drown if they get into trouble... oh hang on, we already do that.

In addition to its moral repugnance, I don't think that a 'Fortress Australia' policy with respect to refugees is likely to be successful in the long term, anyway. If people are desperate enough, they will find ways to get here.

Hell, they might even come as tourists and overstay their visas, for example.

“…I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the question of mandatory detention of asylum seekers.”

Well CJ, we’ve got the perfect forum here for nutting out this issue. So why not do it, rather than just pass it off as an irreconcilable difference.

You are very strong on the need for balance and population stabilisation. The potential for large-scale asylum seeker influx presents a significant component of this balance, so let’s explore it fully.

Can I re-ask;

“You’d allow them to move freely in society from the moment they first arrive? Or would you hold them in low security centres in our cities? What exactly is your point of balance on this?”

“I suppose we could deal with the supposed dangers you see even more effectively than via unjust incarceration.”

Yes! We could deal with them in a much harsher manner. So perhaps it is worth considering detention to be a moderate measure, which really is an appropriate balance between treating them reasonably well and maintaining a strong deterrence factor.

“I don't think that a 'Fortress Australia' policy with respect to refugees is likely to be successful in the long term, anyway.”

Rather than branding it a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality, we should simply be thinking of it as sensible border-protection policy. Where would we be without it? We’d be overrun, or at least, subjected to constant arrivals, which would harden the resolve of the Australian public and politicians to put an end to it, treating those caught in the middle in a considerably harsher manner than in the past.

There are no two ways about it, we should be clamping right down on onshore asylum-seeker movement, which Howard has done, and putting our refugee efforts into offshore programs.

Bob Geldof is right; Australia’s contribution is pathetic. THIS is where our efforts need to be greatly improved, NOT in giving onshore asylum seekers an easier passage.

Balancing humanitarian needs with ecological sustainability is arguably going to be the toughest thing we have to do this century.
Already we have climate-change deniers suggesting that reducing carbon emissions would be denying prosperity to poor nations without electricity etc. etc.
While I hesitate to put all my faith in technology, in reality it is the only desirable solution: we will have no choice but to make use of technology that allows us to live in currently uninhabitable regions, and to grow food in currently unproductive areas. The challenge is going to be avoiding the mistake that has been made with technology so many times in the past: solving one problem just to create two or three more.

I think there is a medium-term need to reduce Australia's immigration intake, as long as we have potential food, water and infrastructure shortages. But longer term we may not have much choice but to accept refugees from ecological disasters of one sort or another. Trying to keep them out will be not only largely impossible, but if it damns millions to certain death, a moral outrage. Further, I wouldn't assume that just because we have to allow millions of refugees in that they will be here permanently: once here, Australia can lend all assistance possible towards finding and building new homes for these people, as close as possible to their place of origin. This may well mean radical solutions such as building floating cities where now-under-water islands used to be (this is an option I see The Netherlands already taking - by 2050 most of its residents may well be living in floating housing).

"Balancing humanitarian needs with ecological sustainability is arguably going to be the toughest thing we have to do this century."

Thats why I posed the question.

I have to agree with Ludwig. Its sad but true, the easier we make
it, the more will flood in. We have clearly seen that in Europe.
Reality prevails, Australia cannot solve the world's refugee
problems, but simply make a contribution.

Bob Geldorf may well be correct, ie. that Australia should contribute
more in terms of aid. The question then arises, what kind of aid?

As we have seen in Ethiopia, the Geldorf model of sending more boatloads
of food, does not solve anything, it simply creates more
people wanting food. Perhaps Australia should be so bold as to
defy the Catholic Church and spend aid money and knowledge on
providing women of the third world with family planning, something
that hundreds of millions don't yet have.

So how much we spend is less important then how we spend it. We cannot
deny that constant human population growth is a huge issue for all
of us and for the future of our planet.

Europe is not comparable to Australia, as refugees mostly reach European nations by land.

The reality is that getting to Australia is already difficult enough.

Yes, some of the harsh programs implemented by the Howard government to deter asylum seekers have been followed by a reduction in the numbers attempting the journey, but I would far rather see that we reduce our regular migrant intake first to give us the capacity to absorb extra numbers, and work more closely with the governments of the source (and stop-off) countries to help ensure that refugees have less motivation to attempt travelling here illegally in the first place. In other words, there are far better ways to solve the problem. We could look to New Zealand, for a start, where mandatory detention is kept to a minimum, treatment of asylum seekers is generally within UN guidelines, and it has yet to be "swamped" by illegal migrants.

Hmm... it seems to me there is a lottt of woolly thinking going on.

Mandatory detention was introduced by KEATING..not Howard.

Wizo says:

>>but I would far rather see that we reduce our regular migrant intake first to give us the capacity to absorb extra numbers, and work more closely with the governments of the source (and stop-off) countries to help ensure that refugees have less motivation to attempt travelling here illegally in the first place<<

Wiz.. just to obtain a 'position statement' from you on this issue.

If Australian troops are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban (who are the primary persecutors of the Hazara),.. does this fit in with your 'be more involved with governments at the source' suggestion?

It sure does to me, in fact.. I have absolute peace about that. It's about time that 'addressing the source' issues included destroying the destroyer...... After all, we have 2 choices

1/ Do nothing but treat the symptom... i.e. just pick up the damage bill, accept all the persecuted people.. and in time there will be another 'persecuted people' by some other warlord, and on it goes.

2/ Recognize the tru source of the problem, and
a) WARN IT, and if that fails
b) KILL IT. i.e. send troops to do what only an army can do and should do. (See Romans 13:1-5)

Now such a situation raises the very philosophical problem opened by Yabby. "Save us...or save them"

How about we change that to "Save us BY Saving them from evil in their own backyard"?

One more thing Wiz...don't you consider that reducing our normal immigration intake (which is skills based mostly) and taking in more 'country shoppers' will by any chance encourage MORE country shoppers? Specially when the word gets out.



Cheers

Yaddy hit on key point with her questioning of ‘balance’.
Terms like balance (fairness & compassion) sound nice but can mean whatever one wants them to mean.

In the aftermath of a mega disaster, a 20m intake may well be considered by many of the most ‘moral’, as fair & balanced, especially since Aust convicted as it is by their ‘per capita’ measures, would be damned as holding prime responsibility for such a disaster.

The Green movements advocacy continues to be too one dimensional.
• They are very loud and active about CO2 emissions’ - (I suspect it’s easy & PC to blame the West) but do not show any where near the same militancy re population controls.
• Further, they usually ridiculed initiatives outside the Kyoto framework which are aimed at cleaning up existing processes - largely it would seem, because they’re outside of the Kyoto square.

And the tacit messages in a lot of the Greens literature is:
• The Third World communities may build in the most inappropriate of places & if it gets flooded, it’s all a climate change problem, &.
• The Third World communities may have as many children as they desire, but if times turn sour and they starve, it’s all a climate change issue.

The population issue is not just about curtailing growth rates -it should be about cutting existing numbers.Most countries are overpopulated -their numbers are too high to sustain when times turn adverse. The tragic irony is that when some like Western Europe, by default or design, reduce growth -they are flooded by Third World immigrants , most of whom- - are environmentally less committed -as in, for every one you abort we'll have four.

Yabby's right... the best aid is boatloads of condoms and info about the desirability of smaller families and how to plann for them, with incentives not to breed.
We need such a program in Australia too, as our sustainable population is around ten million or less. When there are about 5,000,000,000 fewer people on the planet, things will start to improve -- but not before.
This whole posting is a bit suspect. The obvious object of the original posting was 'Greens-bashing'. The writer took one contentious issue out of a complete manifesto that is basically excellent, and damned the lot of them. Not an admirable approach.

"The obvious object of the original posting was 'Greens-bashing'."

Actually not so. My politics is issue based, not party based.
So I feel free to criticise any policies and also mention those
that I think are correct.

On this particular issue however, I see a contradition in terms,
when it comes to the Greens. So the question arises, are their
politics based on heart on your sleeve stuff, or well thought
through? Ludwig answered that for me. As I stated from the
start, this is a philosophical question which should go well
beyond party politics, for its a question about the future
of humanity.

Wiz, I have to disagree about using NZ as a comparison. NZ
is not a hop,skip and jump from Indonesia. Their fishing
boats sail into Australian waters every day, not so for
NZ, its too far. Whether Indonesian fishermen come and fish
here, or try a more lucrative business such as people transport,
would just depend on how keen they are to earn hard cash.

If I had my way, all asylum seekers would come from refugee
camps, so that all have a chance, not just those who can rake
together enough money, to pay off the appropriate dealers in
the trade. Women and children should be considered too, not
just mainly young males. But the fact remains, there are
roughly 10-20 million refugees in camps and we cannot take them
all. As global population rises, this problem is only going
to increase, not decrease.

So where is the balance? remains a key question for us now and
into the future, as global population pressure rises.

Yabby defends himself from the charge of 'Green Bashing' :).. gee Yabbs.. you should know by now that if you criticize any group.. you are 'bashing' them ..... in fact to just disagree about something.. according to our PC brigade.. mostly it seems of the 'green/democrat/Leftoid'(or is it Leftard) political flavor.. you are "spreading hate, bashing,part of the problem, full of venom," blah blah etc.

Well..I'd rather be charged with that than with 'Lunacy' as I see our Green dragon Bob Brown needs to be labelled... well according to Andrew Bolt at least.

WHAT DOES BROWN/Greens WANT ? re water conservation.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22793250-25717,00.html

>>To see how insane Brown's plan truly is, just do the maths.

A new dam in the Mitchell River national park - which used to be a dam reservation until this Government decided to lock it up - would cost about $1 billion, according to Melbourne Water.

That could give us a dam about the size of the Thomson, Melbourne's biggest.

Now compare.

To hold the same amount of water in rainwater tanks, the city would need another 500,000,000 standard 2000-litre tanks, or about 150 for every Melburnian.

And the cost? About $1000 billion, at standard retail prices. Enough to build 1000 Thomson dams<<

So,...Brown is 'loony' on Water... ok..how about the other end of the scale.. 'consumers of water'.....

"Aah Those poor refugees.. lets take many more in... more more more...specially those effected by environmental trouble" (paraphrase/summary of my understanding of his position)

So there you have it. Ingredients for a political party to be declared "nul, void, loony, stupid, increasing the problem while decreasing/attacking the solution".

And CJ Morgan teaches our uni students ? :) Onya CJ...I guess you also tell them how educated you are and how SuperBob is the true Messiah of 'Truth,Justice and the Environmental Way' ? (rather than Andrew Bolt) 0_-

Unfortunately this thread seems to have been derailed by our most prolific frootloop. I hope that last dump made Boazy feel better, and that he wiped his arse and washed his hands afterwards.

There is no point in dignifying crap like that by responding.

Yabby, I had anticipated your point about Australia being somewhat easier to reach than NZ, but that doesn't mean we can't look to NZ for ideas on how to more humanely treat refugees.

BTW, Boaz, when Keating introduced Mandatory Detention centres there was a 273 day limit, and no unaccompanied children were detained. Howard's measures (including the Pacific Solution) were considerable harsher. I don't object to mandatory detention per se, but without rapid and humane processing, any usefulness they may have as a deterrent is far outweighed by the human costs of extended detention.

CJ, why worry about Boazy. He can only derail the thread if others let him. The discussion is very much on track.

So can you address my pertinent questions?

Or perhaps rather than give your personal stance, can you tell us the Greens’ position on how they would accommodate asylum seekers if not in mandatory detention and how they would balance their non-detention policy and the increase in numbers that it could lead to with their policy on limits to population growth and overall sustainability.

Yeah, fair enough Ludwig. I agree that the best way to deal with annoying nutters like Boazy is to ignore them.

On topic, I should stress that although I'm a Greens member because overall their policies accord most with my own views, I'm not a spokesman for them at any level. On this subject I can only do what anybody else who's genuine about trying to balance humanitarian concerns with environmental issues can do - i.e. look up the various relevant policies and assess them in the context of my personal values and knowledge.

With respect to mandatory detention of asylum seekers, I start from the position that it is wrong to incarcerate a group of people because of the possibility that a few of them may not be genuine - even more so if this involves incarcerating them for extended periods in remote offshore locations where they have no access to advocacy and support services.

However, like wizofaus, I'm willing to compromise on that stance if it can be shown that processing can be done expedititously, and that detention does not mean isolation from the kinds of advocacy and support services that would ameliorate the trauma of unjust incarceration and assist in integrating refugees into the community. Otherwise, I really think that fears of what might happen if asylum seekers were released into the community are exaggerated, compared with the actuality of what is unjust and inhumane treatment of the vast majority of them.

[cont]

[cont]

I agree that Australia can't take all refugees who may wish to come here in the future, but I believe strongly that we should take our fair share. Certainly, given our disproportionate per capita contribution to greenhouse gases domestically and our reliance on exporting coal, it can be argued that we have a greater responsibility than other developed countries to shoulder our share of the environmental burden elsewhere that we have helped create, and from which we continue to benefit.

As I've said, I also agree that we need to increase significantly Australia's provision of foreign aid that is targeted specifically at addressing the problems that cause people to become refugees in the first place. I don't see any easy answers to this, and neither do the Greens in my experience - but at least they have policies that begin to address the looming problems that we face in this area, unlike the other political parties.

Given Australia's active particpation in, and reliance upon, a globalised world economy, it is just not morally or politically possible for us to try and avoid facing up to our responsibilities in the event of the hypothetical environmental cataclysm that Yabby imagines. Although we're a relatively small nation, we have certainly contributed disproportionately to the anthropogenic aspects of climate change.

"it can be
argued that we have a greater responsibility than other developed countries to shoulder our share of
the environmental burden "

CJ, I have a problem with that, as I feel that some of us are going
on some huge guilt trip here.

Yes we mine coal, yes we smelt aluminium for others use, yes we
grow crops to feed others. All those things are for the benefit
of others, their electricity etc, yet is held against us when
it comes to CO2.

Surely its the users of the final energy, for whatever purpose,
that should be taken into account. Now if you go to central Europe,
NE USA, and other cold climates, enormous amounts of diesel and
gas are burnt, just for heating houses. In Europe now you have
discount airlines everywhere. People will fly from London to
Paris for lunch!

In the third world, if I have 11 kids and they all chop down trees
to live, thats fine and nobody says boo. I'm told that Indonesia
alone through logging, is adding another 2 billion tonnes a year
of CO2, with an ever rising population. Yet I should go on some
guilt trip over my average household use of 5-6 tonnes or whatever.

I just think that the whole debate is out of balance right now.

Fact is if we add another 2-3 billion people to the global population,
our problems will be far larger then they are now.

Everyone fusses over their feelgood exercises of peddling to work
to change the planet, but the real mega issues are being ignored
and an extra 80 million people a year sure is one of them. Yet
no political party even mentions this as an issue, just about
our supposed Aussie guilt trip that we should be on.

Thanks CJ.

Our views are not too far apart now. Just a few comments:

I think your term ‘unjust incarceration’ is a bit emotive. I’d call it well-justified confinement.

Given the difficulty in processing some of these people, I don’t think we’ve done too badly. Many asylum seekers had their claims dealt with pretty quickly. Others were more difficult, due to people destroying their documentation and refusing to cooperate.

Australia took a very liberal interpretation of the criteria for determining refugees when it came to processing asylum seekers, compared to the processing of refugees accepted through our immigration program. If a uniform interpretation had been upheld, the vast majority of asylum seekers would not have been accepted.

Of course there were some problems, but all-told I think the whole business was/is handled pretty well. This balance between border protection and a reasonable manner of dealing with asylum seekers is just about the only think that Howard has done that I strongly support.

I’m not so sure that we should feel obligated to take our ‘fair share’ of refugees. What we should feel obligated to do is contribute our fair share to global refugee issues. To this end we should immediately boost foreign aid to more than double its current amount; to at least 0.7% of our GDP, in line with Bob Geldof’s push and the long-standing UN recommendation.

I agree with Yabby that this should primarily be directed towards population stabilisation/reduction.

Ludwig: "Our views are not too far apart now."

Agreed - and not just on this issue. All that separates us here is the issue of detention. You think that your imagined end justifies the means, while I think that the demonstratedly harsh treatment of detainees is unwarranted, given that most of them are proven to be genuine refugees.

Maybe we need to have arguments from both perspectives. However, I have to say that another point of difference between us is your apparent faith in the State to provide solutions to social problems, and particularly via enforcement - which seems to pervade many of your arguments. Maybe it's because you work for them :)

Anyway, on this issue I reckon Ludwig and I could probably go a long way to resolving some of these differences - and no doubt many of the world's other problems - over a beer or three in the pleasant possibility that our paths should ever cross :)

“I have to say that another point of difference between us is your apparent faith in the State to provide solutions to social problems, and particularly via enforcement - which seems to pervade many of your arguments.”

Yes CJ I do have faith that the State can provide solutions to social problems, environmental issues, etc. Yes I do believe in strong governance, a strong rule of law and hence, effective enforcement. I can’t imagine what alternative there is! What do you believe in?

I have worked for the Qld Government for 20 years. I can see that in some ways it has been strong and effective and in other ways, downright appalling. Both of these apply as they relate to my job and field of expertise.

Don’t you think that strong governance with the right policies is all-important in all manner of issues, as they relate to the subject of this thread and far beyond?

You’ve now got me very curious to know just how we differ on this.

Ludwig, of course I agree with effective governance - good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement are part of that.

What I meant was that you tend to advocate the 'big stick' approach by government as the first remedy to most problems, where I tend to see it as a last resort.

Can you give me a couple of examples CJ.

Hi Ludwig - in looking back for some examples I see we've touched on this before. However, some examples as requested:

"Essential only?

Would it not be reasonable for the government to force, coerce, or provide strong incentives to get people to do things that are BENEFICIAL for the county, and for themselves?

Afterall, practically all laws are implemented for these reasons, are they not?

Laws force us to undertake certain actions and to not undertake others, for the greater good, but not necessarily for essential needs of the country."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=208#20442

"Can any government significantly move in the direction that it thinks it should without undertaking strong moves that are against the wishes of the majority?"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90868

"We need to start planning for a much-improved policing regime now! And not just in Queensland."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=787#13597

"A strong enforcement regime is needed. But this is the same for most things in mainstream society. Many ordinary people are generally pretty damn poor at owning responsibility, and will break the law if they think they won’t get caught, whether or not they believe in the merit of the particular law they are breaking."

"So perhaps a stronger government is just what we need. Unfortunately I think it is impossible for most people to view a stronger government as not being more patronising or draconian."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=744#13280

At least you're consistent!

I’m impressed CJ. Thanks for taking the time to go through a whole lot of my old posts.

“At least you're consistent!”

Yep. I’m sure you would have highlighted apparent contradictions had you come across any.

I reckon all of these statements and questions of mine that you quote are posed in the interests of “…good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement…” and are not examples of a “…big stick approach by government as the first remedy to most problems…”

Obviously you think differently. So can I ask you to elucidate just what it is that you disagree with here given that you wrote;


“Ludwig, of course I agree with effective governance - good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement are part of that.”

Can you outline how any of these quotes constitute and example of a big-stick-as-a-first-remedy approach?

As it pertains to the subject of this thread, Howard’s actions over the Tampa and subsequent policy on asylum seekers were viewed by many as being the most draconian Australian politics of the post-war era. But they were far from the first attempted remedy, having evolved through a fairly long history of onshore asylum seeker issues, and they were quite necessary at that time, when there was a massive escalation of people mobilising towards Australia.

Rather than criticise that approach, I would criticise the lack of appropriate action under Keating and early Howard that allowed the situation to become quite critical, to the point where strong and immediate action was needed.

I guess this whole issue of effective governance comes down to the final statement of mine that you quote;

“Unfortunately I think it is impossible for most people to view a stronger government as not being more patronising or draconian”

Ludwig, you've said it yourself. What is simply "strong government" to you is draconian to me.

I think that Howard's approach to the Tampa, SIEV-X and "children overboard" affairs was both draconian and cynically opportunist in political terms. You seem to think it was good governance.

I think that the 'Pacific Solution' is inhumane and unjust. You think that it's appropriate enforcement.

While we appear to agree in general terms about the nature of the problems we face with respect to overpopulation, we seem to differ irreconcilably as to how to deal with them most appropriately. But at least we can discuss it civilly, which is no small thing :)

CJ I’m not willing to simply accept that we have an irreconcilable difference. I value your opinion and I would like to nut out just exactly what the differences are if we can.

So if I may, I’d like to continue this dialogue for a bit.

It seems to me that there is a conflict between your statements;

“Ludwig, of course I agree with effective governance - good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement are part of that.”

and

“What is simply ‘strong government’ to you is draconian to me.”

You quoted some of my comments on law and the policing thereof as examples of draconianism.

But it is obvious that the law and the policing regime are far below an ideal level to protect us all and provide a genuine sense of security, in all sorts of areas across society. A better balance is badly needed. So rather than being draconian, wouldn’t a better rule of law be seen as good effective governance?

continued

Regarding the tragedy of the SIEV-X, surely a large part of a strong border-protection and the deterrence of asylum-seekers and people-smugglers is to stop this sort of horrible thing from happening. (For those who don’t know the story, the boat sank due to chronic overcrowding in which some 376 people perished. It didn’t have anything to do with Australian intervention)

With the children overboard controversy, the SIEV 4 was intercepted with 223 asylum seekers on board. All the hoo haa about children being thrown overboard really is a huge distraction from what really mattered; desperate people seeking asylum that were rightly intercepted and then dealt with in a pretty fair and reasonable manner.

CJ you said you thought Howard’s approach to these issues was cynically opportunistic. I disagree. Yes they were opportunistic, as they just presented themselves and had to be dealt with quickly. But there was nothing cynical about it. Perhaps you could express what you think Howard should have done that would have rendered his actions non-cynical.

I believe that many of those who opposed the detention of asylum seekers used these events in a very cynical manner indeed, picking up on any side issue that they could and blowing it out of all proportion.

As far as I’m concerned, this sort of thing is another powerful reason to clamp right down on asylum seeker movement. That is; the conflict that it creates in Australian society.

Ludwig, I don't accept that. A different leader could have easily handled the issue in a way that did not divide Australians.
There was no excuse for Howard stating "I express my anger at the behaviour of those people and I repeat it. I can't comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard.", given the knowledge he had at the time.

Indeed, even if it *were* true that asylum seekers had been deliberating throwing their children over board, this is an unhelpful, spiteful comment.

Howard made these statements well aware of the political power they would have - he made them during an election campaign, and significantly shored up his support from a section of the population who still harbour xenophobic tendencies.

Ludwig: "CJ I’m not willing to simply accept that we have an irreconcilable difference. I value your opinion and I would like to nut out just exactly what the differences are if we can."

Sure Ludwig - but you might have to give me a day or two to get back to you. I'm in Brisbane right now, about to drive back to the bush where I'll be absurdly busy for a couple of days.

Undoubtedly I'll think about your ideas with respect to road rules on the drive home :)

Dnicholson, obliviously I need to ask you how you think a different leader could have handled these issues in a less divisive manner while upholding the very strong need to deter asylum seekers and people smugglers and prevent these sorts of events occurring.

I’m not sure that Howard made statements for political power-play reasons. I think it is quite incidental that these events happened in the lead-up to an election. Would Howard have said anything different if they had happened mid-term? I can’t see that he would have.

If he had made statements for political reasons, with the election in mind, would it necessarily have been a bad thing? I mean, what’s the difference between political expediency and the desired goal of stopping people-smuggling operations outright? He was striving for that goal, and of course he was going to sell the concept to the Australian public, especially when relevant issues were in the media.

I don’t like what Howard said, as you quote him above. But I’m not willing to condemn him for it.

I’m not sure that these events could have been handled significantly better. But I am sure that they could have been handled a whole lot worse.

Crikey, they are extremely sensitive affairs. The chances of them being handled really well, without any complications, would be minute.

“…and significantly shored up his support from a section of the population who still harbour xenophobic tendencies.”

I would say that Howard’s actions over the Tampa, etc significantly shored up his support amongst the Australian populace that could see that an escalation in asylum seeker arrivals, or even a continued trickle, was clearly a highly undesirable thing, with xenophobia sensu stricto having scant little to do with it.