“Pied piper, I ignore sheep kissers, it's the smell and constant baa baa babble, it goes with the need for gumboots when kneeling behind them.”

Typical Shrink.

At least for a second there I distracted you enough so that you weren’t actively destroying children’s lives with your unique blend of assumptions based on formulas followed rather than letting any reality get in the way.

How do you slither in to positions where you can, on a whim, destroy a small soul for income?

CJ – I think this person is a thug but I wouldn’t put it past a shrink to act in this way.

Oh me gawd Yabby, the little shite. Looks like mum warmed to the idea. Ew.

The Pied Piper
I wrote in an other post that many times I try to support people and at the end I have problems with some of them because they misunderstand me!
NO I HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS!

"I wrote in an other post that many times I try to support people and at the end I have problems with some of them because they misunderstand me!
NO I HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS!"

What's the problem Antonios?

The Pied Piper
Nothing! Thank you!

“Nothing! Thank you!”

Antonios you drive me nuts my friend.

If you are talking about the silly shrink then don’t worry about the gutless fool.

Hey be happy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHb0V9B5f6g no idea what the words are but it sounded nice.

CJ:

“1. The vast majority of 'boat people' who came to Australia under the Howard regime were subsequently found to be bona fide refugees, i.e. they weren't economic immigrants in disguise.”

They were found to be refugees under a much more liberal interpretation of the 1951 Convention than was used for offshore refugees. Only the most needy refugees from Australia’s various posts were accepted. If the same level of interpretation had been applied, a very small portion of onshore asylum seekers would have been accepted.

As onshore asylum seekers displaced desperately needy people that were due to come here under our formal immigration program, they should have been subjected to the same interpretation of the criteria.

Once onshore asylum seekers were here in mainland detention centres (or on Christmas I or Nauru), it was understandably preferable to accommodate all of them except those that were obviously not refugees or had a significant criminal record or whatever. But that doesn’t necessarily mean some of them weren’t more akin to economic refugees than to the desperately needy people that we accommodated (or who were consequently not accommodated) via our formal immigration program.

“2. Malaysia and Indonesia, unlike Australia, are not signatories to the Refugee Convention, which means that they are not required under International Law to provide asylum to refugees…”

So, can we really expect Rudd’s diplomacy to do the trick in these countries? What’s their interest in not sending refugees straight on to Oz? What’s the ability or the resolve the government to prevent this?

“asylum seekers aren't 'country shoppers' because they don't remain in Malaysia or Indonesia.”

Oh yes they are!! Because they are only going to M or I for the express purpose of getting to Oz!

continued