The Forum > General Discussion > 'May they rot in hell'
'May they rot in hell'
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- ...
- 21
- 22
- 23
-
- All
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 8:34:09 PM
| |
Here's a thought I came across elsewhere: why doesn't the Australian government set up a processing centre in Indonesia to assess the bona fides of asylum seekers who turn up there?
Although Australia's a signatory to the UN Convention while Indonesia isn't, I'm sure the Indonesians would cooperate. Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 8:50:38 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
You don't know much about me at all. Firstly, you call me "young and silly." Then you tell me to get my "little mind," around the 1951 Convention... (don't you know its not the size but how you use it that counts?). And finally you accuse me of falling for "Govt. spin." In actual fact - I'm reading as much as I can on this issue. I'm watching a whole bunch of news reports and TV programmes on the topic. I'm trying to get as many different points of view as I can - because I find this an interesting subject. You're the one that appears to be inflexible on this topic. Perhaps you're right - it could be a "generational thing." One tends to become more set in one's ways as one gets older. I understand. However, you just may be interested in the following website: http://www.theage.com.au/national/whos-afraid-of-the-r-word-20090417-aa9q.html "Who's Afraid Of The 'R' Word? The Age, April 18, 2009. "Australians have never warmed to the Refugee Convention. We were among the first to sign it and we trumpet its virtues, particularly to countries in our region who have not signed up. But the fundamental notion that we should assess the refugee claims of everyone who turns up on our shores ..." Read the article. It's very interesting and informative. Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 11:23:44 PM
| |
The first "safe haven" depends on whether the country is in fact a signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 protocol.
Non-signatories still have obligations toward refugees under international law but not minimum standards of treatment or legal status. Of the 34 non-signatory countries, many already have suspect human rights records and may not be considered "safe" for any outsider, let alone refugees. Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 2:44:51 AM
| |
I think it was all the exhaust smoke being blown his way Horus, I did not actually see any relevance to it, until I used some of C J Morgan’s Reasoned Logic;
which is an anathema to the motley crews argument – CJ forgot to complete the sentence – it is their Logical fallacy being argued- In any case, I look forward to the next propaganda campaign that is inevitable - And that the explosion was caused by a Moss ad Agent or a C I A agent - who dived overboard in their Acme blue overalls. It was a deliberate act to provoke an incident. Don’t laugh – it is coming. You may now know why Government is in definition a false premise, along with its incompetent ineptitude – and formulated by the Bureaucrats - an internal dysfunctional Utopian gravy train – or a new age Sheltered workshop. You are right Leigh – our boys ought to be back here protecting Australia from the enemy that has gone out of control – and it is within Posted by All-, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 3:51:21 AM
| |
Er, CJ Morgan Re your post of : Tuesday, 21 April 2009 2:37:13 PM
1) I don’t know how you determined that the Taliban were a/the ‘legal’ govt. The Taliban gained power via the same invasive/violent activates that you seem to find so objectionable when employed by the West – and they had foreign backing , including Arabs , The Pakistani intelligence agency & ‘our’ home grown ‘freedom fighter’ David. 2) Nor do I know how you determined that OZ “ accepted around 1000 'boat people' who sought asylum here following our defeat” . If you think ‘1000’ was the full extent of our post-Vietnam war intake you are seriously mistaken. Must be those dodgy immigration figures some have been citing. 3) And as for : ‘ Afghanistan adventure… Australia, then we have a moral obligation to accept as refugees those poor bastards who've been displaced by Western military adventurism and have also become endangered’ You might like to consider an alterative take on the issue (at least for a minute or two) by O’Connor & William in ‘Overloading Australia’. ‘A dramatic example of this occurred in 2002 [in] Afghanistan , prior to the US launching its war on the Taliban . Millions of refugee began to pour out of the country ….the sudden flood of refuges had had little to with the Taliban , or the war– they were peasants fleeing a famine…the famine was caused by drought , at least partly; but the drought was not unprecedented. What was unprecedented was the vast population that was now trying to feed itself in those cold upland valleys…Afghan women were averaging over 6 children each. As a result the amount of land sown to grain per person had fallen to a miniscule 0.02 of a hectare’ Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 6:37:28 AM
|
the standard Govt spin, put out by Evans or even the Liberals for
that matter.
It goes right back to the 1951 Convention, in comparison to what
is happening today and how unfair that is for those not cashed up
enough to go country hopping.
Now you can try and get your little mind around that big issue,
or just ignore it and believe the Govt spin.
We now know your choice.