Boazy: "I mean...come ON.... There might be a dispute.. but there is no basis for it. So, tough biccies for them. 'Our' Fish.. not theirs. Go Home Indonesian fish thieves!"

Our resident history buff and very poor advertisement for Christianity is in top form.

Isn't the fish a symbol of Christianity? I thought it referred to a myth about Jesus sharing fish in an adverse time, but then again I make no claims to biblical scholarship...

Actually, the ancestors of these guys from Roti have been fishing in what is latterly Australia's economic zone since before 'Australia' or 'Indonesia' existed. While might will undoubtedly prove to be right - which appears to be Boazy's Christian version of history in general - the legitimacy of Australia's extended borders for economic purposes is indeed questionable.

Dear dear CJ :)

u do have some points there.. in terms of my vocabulary and 'tone' .... must sound a little harsh I guess...

I think the 'harshness' is not the main issue, but the 'tone' probably is. I tend to 'get going' a bit on these kinds of issues, but I rejoice in that you make a contrast with a Jesus who seems to you to be much kinder... this is good.

It matters not that people have been fishing certain areas, but I suggest your history may not be entirely correct.
-Fishermen will not go further than they need in order to bring home a catch.
-Subsistence level fishing is usually sustainable in the immediate area of populated Islands
-Main reasons for going further afield are:
a) Decimation of local fish stocks.
b) COMMERCIAL interests provoking higher than neccessary catches.

Some History:
http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch02s06.html

The native Christian population engages in agricultural activity, local strand collecting, and >>inshore fishing in small boats<<. They are ‘not noted for their open sea sailing traditions’ (Fox 1998: 126).

"This kind of maritime trading activity would account for some Muslim settlement in Pepela, possibly commencing in the early twentieth century but most probably after the 1920s. Subsequent settlement by other Muslim groups appears to be the result of fishing activity undertaken in the Timor Sea."

So there you go. Dare I say you are 'playing fast and loose with truth' ? :) as you are want to say of me.

Nah..lets leave squabbles aside and cut to the real issue here.
In spite of my 'robust' verbage, the core matter is sovereignty and the implications of not enforcing it. The moment you allow 'economic' refugees, who's coming is based on the enforcement of our laws, you open a veritable pandora's box for 10s of 1000s to come.
Agree or disagree?

*Gut feelings are often right*......

more info about these 'poor fishermen'.....

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/pdf/ch04.pdf

However, by examining Bajo narratives in conjunction with some of these historical sources, it is possible to identify some of these fishermen as Bajo from Mantigola and Mola, and hence to provide dates for early Bajo fishing activity in the north Australian region.

So....lets ask 'WHO' are the Mantigolan Bajo?
-Could they represent a security risk for Australia ? (by their history and religious disposition)

Lets allow the ANU document to answer:

However, since the late 1980s, the most significant migration of Bajo from Mola and Mantigola — not just male members of the community but also women and children — has been to and from the village of Pepela on the island of Roti.

Is there a connection between Islamic extremism and the Bajo from Roti who are turning up on Australian shores?

YOU BET THERE IS!

Kahar Muzakkar led an Islamic based rebellion in South Sulawisi, where tens of thousands of Christians have been persecuted and killed.
His son is still there..standing for election.
Bajo from South Sulawisi have migrated to PEPELA..
Bajo fishermen from PEPELA are turning up on AUSTRALIAN territory.

Game over CJ.

ps. I can tell you a few stories about 'Bajo' cultural characteristics from my time in Malaysia (They are also in SAbah).. fits the pattern perfectly.

Your ability to deal in half-truths, Boaz, is one of your least endearing trademarks.

This time, you omitted to mention a phrase from the same article that puts the Muslim fishing activities into some perspective:

"Most land is owned by the native Rotinese, so the Muslim inhabitants are dependent on the sea for their income"

However, you even more conveniently omit reference to the part of the paper that totally supports CJ's point, which was, if you recall, that:

>>Actually, the ancestors of these guys from Roti have been fishing in what is latterly Australia's economic zone since before 'Australia' or 'Indonesia' existed.<<

The preface to the paper you cite states explicitly that:

"If we accept Flinders' account and recognise the “dry shoal lying to the south of Rotee” as Ashmore Reef, then it follows that the Bajo arrival on the northern coast of Australia was roughly contemporaneous with the arrival of Captain Cook in Botany Bay. What is remarkable, however, is not these early dates, but the fact that Bajo sailing patterns at least to the seas in and around Ashmore Reef continue to this day."

I know that this does not do anything for your case, but this should be the least of the reasons for leaving it out - you should surely be far more concerned with openness and honesty.

Or is that also something that you can make up as you go along?

As an afterthought, this probably illustrates the reason why you use inaccessible audio presentations so much - you get found out far more quickly when you support your argument with text.

Thanks Pericles. I was about to make much the same points.

Boazy: "Dare I say you are 'playing fast and loose with truth' ?"

Well no, actually - as Pericles has demonstrated. I'll just add, from the same souce as that from which you've very serlectively quoted:

"Until 1952 Indonesians were free to fish anywhere off the coast of Australia and its islands so long as they were outside the 3 nm limit of territorial waters (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 115). In 1952, the Commonwealth Pearl Fisheries Act came into force, making it illegal to collect sedentary species on the continental shelf. [3] In the following year Australia made a unilateral claim over the entire continental shelf in order to protect pearl shell resources from Japanese fishing activities. Although the Australian Government now had the legal powers to prosecute Indonesian fishermen as well, it did not yet have the capability to apprehend them"

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch05.html

I'll also reiterate that there's no such official status as "economic refugees". While the fishers from Roti may have legitimate grievances, these are not currently recognised in international law.

Further, your attempt to link them with Muslim extremists is just another tawdry dog-whistling effort from good old Islamophobic Boazy. "Game over" indeed - you're having a lend of yourself, old chap.

Glad you are entering the fray Perilous... you are always good at doing the very thing you accuse others of :)

'dealing in half truths'....

There are seveal elements of my position..
-Security risk of these people based on their history and religios disposition.
-Economic Risk due to:

http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit54/watson.htm

"Several fishermen claimed it would take a month to catch in Indonesian waters what it would take a week to catch in Australian waters. This is partly due to overfishing and lack of marine management in Indonesia compared to Australia."

I notice that the article I quote from above also says this:

>>Local tradition says Papela was established during the sixteenth century as a base to fish for shark and trepang around the sandy islands and reefs between north-western Australia and Roti. So Papelans have been fishing there for 500 years.<<

THE ANU article says:

From at least the 1720s (Mitchell 1994: 56) until the early 1900s fleets of perahu sailed from Makassar (South Sulawesi) to the northern Australian coast each year to collect trepang.

Where did they come from ? SOUTH SULAWISI! not Pepela. they were not 'Papelans' they are Makassans, who use Papela as a base at times.

This probably explains why, when their Islamic rebellion failed in South Sulawisi, they headed for Papela!

So.. my point remains absolutely unchallenged.

-SECURITY RISK (Islamic extremism)
-ECONOMIC RISK (lack of control in Indonesia=fishing in Australia)

The to-ing and fro-ing of ancient practices cannot overide current power balances and UN recognized maritime/economic/sovereignty zones.

Several fishermen claimed it would take a month to catch in Indonesian waters what it would take a week to catch in Australian waters. This is partly due to overfishing and lack of marine management in Indonesia compared to Australia.

Protection of resources from overfishing is something I thought you would support? If these people have hardship...they can go back to Makassar from whence they originally came.. Oh wait.. the Indo government doesn't like hotbeds of radical Islamic extremism either.