Bronwyn, you have no credibility.

On 01/10 in answering the question from Bazz as to why the Refugees had not sought sanctuary closer to their country of origin, you said
“None of these countries are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention”

When it was pointed out to you that Egypt is indeed a signatory , this was your response ( on 06/10)
“It is, but it no longer honours its obligations as a signatory. Its border forces shoot asylum seekers and it also routinely refoules asylum seekers back to danger.”

Now was it a case that you just didn’t know that Cairo was not a country, but the capital of Egypt, And when you looked up the list of signatories couldn’t find “Cairo” so assumed it a non-signatory
[ a dud in geography!]

Or, was it that you gave the standard wrote-learned response –without thought, or care, as to its validity—hoping no one would know better [ a dud in ethics!]

And, what’s even worse is, your second attempt is also wrong.

Because, Egypt does accept refugees and has quite a few within its borders. I refer you to the UNHCR publication “Global Trends 2008” page 16 --which you’re sometimes fond of sermonising from –when it appears to assist your argument.

The key here is that while Egypt does accept refugees, but it doesn’t treat them like little lost sheep – Egypt doesn’t produce many little Bo Peeps.So guess what, the “refugees” often choose to bypass Egypt and go to Europe, the Americas or to OZ, where the pastures are richer and the Bo Peeps thicker.

And there is another thing I noted . In your lecturing of Banjo you are at great pains to instil in him the need not to make pre-judgements, that could tarnish the refugee image But you seem not to have the slightest qualm about vilifying a whole nation, Egypt, Aust border security personnel, Howard, Rudd in fact it seems its open season on everyone and anyone excepting your little flock

Horus

<< But you seem not to have the slightest qualm about vilifying a whole nation, Egypt, Aust border security personnel, Howard, Rudd in fact it seems its open season on everyone and anyone excepting your little flock. >>

I'm not villifying anyone. In the case of Egypt, I'm stating fact. I never said the shootings and refoulements applied to the whole of the country or to all refugees, but they do occur nonetheless. Yes, I did make a mistake regarding the signatory nations. It was a mistake arising out of carelessness, and was not a deliberate intention to mislead, as you've implied here. Besides, it's very much a minor point in this discussion and not worth all the attention you've given it.

There's a hateful tone to your writing. You'd obviously take great pleasure in pointing out my mistakes and yet, considering the many different points I've made on this thread, you've found very few. That's made all the more obvious when you make a big song and dance over one small error.

As for my statements regarding border personnel, they're all well documented and once again I'm not saying they apply to all. I'm not engaging in vilification as you claim. I'm criticising policy.

As for vilifying Howard and Rudd? Get real. I'm discussing their refugee policies. Vilification?? If that's vilification, then you've been vilifying me big time.

Vilification? If I could be bothered trawling through your posts, which I can't, I bet I'd find plenty of examples of you vilifying refugees.

Bronwyn, you are still plugging away on this thread. Great. But you have passed over my questions.....that I asked four days ago ( :>/

This opinion of yours that our offshore refugee program stinks is defnitely something that needs to be explored.

The headline on the front page of this weekend's "Weekend Australian",
kind of says it all.

"From Kabul to Colombo, refugees know that Rudd has opened the door"

Some interesting stories follow.

These days refugees have email, mobile phones, etc, they are informed.

For Kevi to now blame people smugglers, when his own policies are
the problem, is just more political spin, to satisfy the bleeding
heart voters of this world, such as Bronwyn, CJ etc.

It comes down to cold hearted smart political calculation. In the
end, that may yet mean that they shoot themselves in their own
proverbial foot. No wonder they are dashing off to Colombo to perform street
theatre to try and discourage the masses from jumping on a boat.

Ludwig

<< Bronwyn, you are still plugging away on this thread. Great. But you have passed over my questions.....that I asked four days ago ( :>/ >>

Sorry, Ludwig, I don't have much OLO time mid week at the moment. I was just putting out spot fires and always intended to respond to you when I had more time. :)

<< Excellent Bronwyn. So then you presumably appreciate that if we don't have a strong deterrence regime, we will quickly get a big increase in the number of arrivals, which could escalate enormously. >>

I said I UNDERSTOOD the deterrence logic. I didn't say I agreed with it. There is a difference. Deterrence involves inflicting cruelty on desperate and vulnerable people and I will never agree to it as a policy direction in any shape or form. You twisted my words and jumped to conclusions that just weren't there. I've argued right through this thread and many others that the policy of deterring asylum seekers is cruel and inhumane. I'm hardly going to turn around now and suddenly agree with you that we need a "strong deterrence regime". How stupid do you think I am? :)

<< So, while some may continue to come no matter how strong the deterrence factor, short of turning all boats around or sinking them, it is of the utmost importance that the numbers of arrivals be kept very small or as you agree, preferably nil. >>

Again, dear Ludwig,I didn’t agree to this at all. :) I agreed with you and Bazz that it would be preferable all around if boats didn't arrive, but I went on to say that while the world is as unstable as it is now asylum seekers will continue to seek safety via boat. Stating as I did that in an ideal world we wouldn't have desperate people forced to leave their homelands in leaky boats doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept the measures required to achieve a situation of "nil" arrivals.

(To be continued)

Ludwig (continued)

I've made it clear all along that deterrence can't be achieved without inflicting unacceptable levels of cruelty and death upon people seeking our assistance. It might be the convenient option, but I will never agree to it, nor will others who understand what it entails in practice.

The Rudd Government is currently embarking on a huge advertising blitz in Sri Lanka to warn Sri Lankan asylum seekers about being conned by unscrupulous people smugglers, about the perils of trying to reach Australia by boat and of the strong likelihood they will be returned to Sri Lanka anyway. This is as much deterrence as I can stomach and even this leaves me cold. It does nothing to assist these Sri Lankan refugees desperate to find safety and displays callous indifference to their true circumstances. For the vast majority of them, the risk of drowning is nothing compared to the certainty of torture and death they face in their homeland.

<< To the next point then: the way that you desire to treat all asylum seekers sits at stark odds with a strong deterrence factor. So how would you treat them in keeping with the deterrence factor? >>

As I’ve just stated, I don’t agree with a ‘STRONG deterrence factor’ so there IS no conflict. My comments in a previous post, where I outlined a preferred system of initial onshore detention for conducting health and security checks, to be followed by monitored community residency while claims are being processed, still stands. Technology today allows for extremely reliable tracking of people if that is what is required for acceptance of this policy shift within the Australian community.

<< There is another major question that I asked earlier that you haven't addressed - "...could you please tell me why you think our offshore system of refugee determination and acceptance is ‘inefficient and inhumane’…" >>

I’ve made this point before, but will repeat it. :) It’s inefficient in that it’s hugely expensive to be constantly transporting food and personnel via the four-hour plane trip needed to reach Christmas Island.

(To be continued)