Part one
Dear Col Rouge,
I did not write only that “Migrants avoid the public services, they do not trust them, they have very bad experiences from the public services in their countries”. The truth is that migrants have big problems with public services not only because they have bad experiences in their countries but also because they have bad experiences from the public services in Australia.
When to sent a fax from Adelaide Passport Office to Nicosia took about 100 days and I had to visit or phone them more than 70 times then you understand what kind of services offer to migrants. It is not that they made a mistake and sent the form to an other country, it is that I went so many times and they ignored me. Only when I found their mistake only then they corrected it.
I have many cases like that, for example,one time, I received from Social Security a notice which wrote that if I did not give them my Tax Assessment until the end of October may be they will stop the youth allowance, In the middle of October they informed me that the youth allowance was stopped three months before. When I asked them what can I do they said me that it was very late.
I wrote to the Ombudsman, and I said that the Social Security misinformed and misled me I had three letters from Social Security to prove what I said. Few days later the Ombudsman advised me to go to Social Security with my Tax Assessment and everything will be OK. I did but only one from my two sons took allowance, they said me they lost the copy of my TAX Assessment from my son's file. I gave up
Sir if you want to be credible you must be fair, you must recognize that we have problems, because we really have race discrimination problems and all together try to solve them. HONEST, FAIR, CLEAR.
I can write books from the race discrimination in Australia,
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

part two,
Dear Col Rouge,
I write bellow some of the Concerns and recommendations of Human Rights Commission, UN, about Australia.
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION
OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Sixty-sixth session
21 February-11 March 2005
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES
PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
AUSTRALIA

9. The Committee, while noting the explanations provided by the delegation, reiterates its concern about the absence of any entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination that would override the law of the Commonwealth (Convention, art. 2).
The Committee recommends to the State party that it work towards the inclusion of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination in its domestic law.
15. The Committee notes with concern that it has proved difficult for complainants, under the Racial Discrimination Act, to establish racial discrimination in the absence of direct evidence and that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts since 2001 (arts. 4 and 6).
The Committee, having taken note of the explanations provided by the delegation,invites the State party to envisage regulating the burden of proof in civil proceedings involving racial discrimination so that once an alleged victim has established a prima facie case that he or she has been a victim of such discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment.
22. The Committee notes with concern reports of alleged discrimination in the grant of visas against persons from Asian countries and Muslims, and further notes the assurances given by the delegation that no such discrimination occurs (art. 5).
The Committee would like to receive more information on this issue, including statistical data. The Committee reiterates that States parties should ensure that immigration policies do not have the effect of discriminating against persons on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
not enough space to write all of them.

Antonios Symeonakis]
Adelaide

ANTONIOS QUOTED:

"it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment."

andd....there you have it.. UN CULTURAL IMPERIALISM and NEO COLONIALISM!

They might as well say "And we want all dogs to be wagged by their tails"

Placing the burden of proof on the ACCUSED to defend his actions.. is in my view SEDITION trying to undermine our whole legal system.

It means that any Tom Dick or Mohammad can 'claim' racial discimination, and the HASSLE of the whole thing then falls on the accused, and we know full well that said Tom Dick etc, might have construed the complaint in order to BENEFIT in various ways.

NO! I say ..let the burden of proof be on the ACCUSER.. let THEM have the problems and cost and burden of proving it.

Now we know and can all see how pernicious 'human rights' and UN conventions can be.. and we also see how suttle but effective are there malicious and ideologically colonialist methods.

I hope ALL of us see this fine print for what it really is. and reject it totally.

Devid,
you are against the victims, you are against the migrants, you are against me. How can you be so hard against innocent people, against me? What is your problem with me? Did I do against you something bad? I do not remember, I do not know you. David, woke up, do not be so hard against migrants. Soften your hurt and try to understand that we are many times more victims than you are. The hate does not solve problems but creates problems.
David now we are many and we have enough power to press for our basic rights. What do you think is better to fight each other or to cooperate for mutual benefits? Give your hand and forget the wounds from the past. I started a new thread for Iran, go to sign the petition.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios, mate, I am not 'against_you'.. I am FOR Australian_Law.

I am FOR fair treatment of all people.

What I am AGAINST is... a re-structuring of our law which victimizes Australians for the sake of a minority who 'see themselves' as 'victims'.

If you look very closely at major conflicts in the world, specially those involving Muslims, you will find a common theme.

ie. "If they are a minority, they will complain of being treated as 2nd class citizens, of discrimination and disrespect"

This is as true as night following day. Kenya.. look it up.. South Thailand.. see it.. 'Australia'.. read the news.

They will whine and moan 'Whyyyyy does the media have to mention the ethnicity "middle eastern appearance" when reporting crime? they yell..

Well just yesterday I read a crime report from sydney where the WHITE ness of the perpetrators was specifically mentioned as it usually is.. to narrow the focus of the public who are assisting in searching for the offenders.

If you think that Australian law should be changed so that any Tom Dick or Antonios can simply 'claim' discrimination and then WE have to fight it at our cost and prove we did NOT do it.. sorrrry mate.. you can bet your LIFE that I'm against you on that score. 100000%

No one..but NO ONE.. has the right to change OUR laws to make us have to defend ourselves at OUR cost over slanderous charges of discrimination.

A genuine case, will stand on the FACTS and it should be the burden of the COURT to prove one way or the other.. there should NOT be any pre-bias in the structure of the legal framework which suggests 'guilty b4 evidence'.

If I complain against you.. then "I" have to prove it.
If you complain against me.."YOU" have to prove it..based on facts.
If a law is broken.. the public prosecutor tries to prove it.

If you REALLLLY want to get me going.. just follow this line u are currently on :) You see.. the true situation is..'you' are against Australia as you currently present yourself.

David
I press you because I expect from you more, I do not think you hate me you are not bad man, simple I try to soften you. I am not against Australia generally, only against the bad Australia and I try to make it better with the minimum possible cost.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide