Quote from a news report: Detainees have set fire to nine buildings at an Australian detention center in what is thought to have been a protest against the rejection of asylum claims....Protests began late Wednesday, with an estimated 100 detainees involved in the violence. Several buildings were torched, and the center’s unarmed guards were forced to flee. Many of the protesters took to the roofs of the facility’s buildings. At one stage riot police were called in to protect the firefighters. Those involved are mostly thought to be Iraqis and Iranians whose applications to stay in Australia as refugees are reported to have been rejected. Other inmates have complained about the length of time it is taking Australian authorities to process their asylum applications (from http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/east-pacific/Asylum-Seekers-Torch-Australian-Detention-Center-120348879.html)

Words fail me...

Article 44 of the Refugee Convention:

Denunciation
1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a
notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The Refugee Convention dates from 1951 and 1967.
Circumstances have changed. The system is now widely abused by people who for economic reasons try their luck in countries with a generous welfare system.
We cannot go on to accept and give all sorts of rights to so called refugees.Most of them have no intention to accept our values and will remain an economic and political burden to this country.
So simply let us denounce the refugee convention and stop to give rights to people who come to Australia without valid papers.

thanks Mr Rudd/Ms Gillard for your 'çompassionate'approach that has led to this. Another failed socialist dogma that takes the high moral ground and ends in pain for everyone.

That's right Runner - brutality and exclusion are the way to go - it's the Christian way and exactly what Jesus taught.

You want to protect unborn babies - unless they grow up to be little brown kids on boats.

It's also what wrong with so-called "right-to-lifers". What they really want is the power to decide who lives and who dies.

The thread who will pay has the subject covered.
Runner!ah well as you know I am firmly against rioters/boat people current weak policy's.
But may I ask what Church you are in?

Funny,

I remember debating the topic in early 2009 when all the ALP supporters were telling me that the "small" increase in boats wasn't a problem and had nothing to do with the policy. Now even rusted on ALP supporters are admitting that this policy is a complete stuff up.

Again the problem is the greens. The ALP has no way of backing out without losing power. The next year as with other issues will see whether labor puts the country ahead of holding power. It is not difficult to guess which.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the asylum seekers who rioted last week had had their claims rejected and were going home anyway. But of course that won't stop people from taking the opportunity to tar all asylum seekers and refugees with the same xenophobic, inhumane brush.

Which is, of course, the OP's intention.

Web wanderings this morning:

http://learnancienthistory.com/rome/refugees-and-the-roman-empire/
“In time it became clear that the Goths wanted to be a part of the Roman system rather than overthrow it. An agreement with the emperor Theodosius in 382 saw them receive territory on the Danube in Thrace but, once again, poor treatment at the hands of the Romans saw the Goths revolt which culminated in their infamous sack of Rome on 24 August 410.
We can be thankful that today’s Displaced Persons and Refugees rarely behave in this way but we should take the warning that desperation can drive them into the arms of groups who take advantage of their desperation.”

http://www.newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/
“Human history is the history of migration and the most sophisticated civilizations arose where human traffic was heaviest. The Ancient Near East, the Indian sub-continent, China, the Americas, Europe – all had constant influxes of migrants bringing new ideas and change. And in ancient Greece the Delphic priests regarded the right of unfettered movement as one of four freedoms distinguishing liberty from slavery. Because they did not feel responsible for newcomers, rulers often saw them as an asset rather than a liability. They would add to a region’s wealth, contribute to taxes and serve in local armies.”

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/kiwis-stuck-in-oneway-welfare-street-20110423-1dsfm.html?from=smh_ft
Under the Commonwealth Social Security Act, only permanent Australian residents are eligible for welfare including the dole, youth allowance and sickness benefits.
But New Zealanders do not fit the definition of Australian resident, because they do not need a permanent visa to live in Australia under the travel agreement permitting free movement between the countries."

Wobbles

your doctrine is wobbily. There are billions of little 'brown ' children who would have a better life here in Australian. Commonsense tells you that those coming by boats are taking the place of those willing to come in an orderely fashion. Money speaks many languages. Maybe I should tell some of my little brown friends to catch a boat as they have been waiting years to come here legally. You really do miss the point and your insinuations are gross.

Belly

I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. The denomination or non denomination I worship in is largely irrevelant.

This verbal bashing of the labour party about 'letting the boats in' and encouraging asylum seekers 'of the wrong kind' always amuses me.

It was the Liberal Party (Under PM Harold Holt) who changed our immigration policy and paved the way for the first 'boat people'(after us British etc!), the Vietnamese, to arrive and settle in Australia:

"Holt's government introduced the Migration Act 1966, which effectively dismantled the White Australia Policy and increased access to non-European migrants, including refugees fleeing the Vietnam War." Wikipedia.

Many Liberal supporters conveniently choose to ignore this fact.

suzeonline

Your desperate long straw to try and cover the total incompentence of this Government defies belief.

Suze, the object of growing up is to recognise ones mistakes, & correct that behaviour.

The fact that Holt made a mistake, even if it was a big one, does not require those who follow afterwards, to continue with that mistake.

We have absorbed about our limit, & with much more our values will be washed away with the flood. We need some time to make those we now have into Ozzies.

If Oz becomes an Asian, or Muslim country, the welcome mat will disappear so quickly your head will spin.

Suzie- I don't consider it a mistake to let Vietnamese people into Australia;
Vietnam is a socially and culturally civilized society. The people are cultural very close to us. Same with most states along East Asia and South East Asia.

The only mistake is when we let in the illiterate peasants from theocratic tribal states who hate non-religious people and societies, and whose only education or knowledge is how to steal what they want to survive, take their anger out when they don't get their way, and how to get revenge on whoever they encounter that offends Allah.

Although you are fair to make that point, as I imagine there are a few that would not contradict what you say here.

Runner, the truth hurts doesn't it?

I agree it wasn't a mistake to 'let' the Vietnamese people settle in Australia, King Hazza.
History has shown that to be true.

But don't you recall the general gnashing of teeth and beating of chests from the predominantly white 'oldies' in Australia of those days in the 60's and 70's?

They were very upset about the Government of the day allowing the 'communists' into our country to stay. Doom and gloom was the order of the day from these people. They were all proved wrong in the end.

I still don't see why we have to tar all Muslim people with the same brush. Many of these people are good law-abiding citizens who mind their own business and just get on with their own lives.

I would hate to be lumped in with all 'White' people of European origin, when many of them are so intolerant of other humans in our world.

Didn't the Christian God supposedly make ALL humans, and not just the white God-believers?

Come on guys, love your neighbours as you would yourselves.

Suzie I'm not a Christian so whatever their God wants is completely irrelevant to me- in fact, I would demand the same if any fundamentalist Christians (if they even still exist these days- overwhelmingly it seems they are vanishing outcast minorities in Western countries- as opposed to predominant self-sustaining ones in some Islamic countries).

The good Muslims are all moderates and secularists (mainly those from not-too-fundamentalist countries), so my immigration stance is to simply quiz arrivals on how they react to secularist morals and norms in a society such as ours- including defamation of religion, blasphemy, and how they would react to nonbelievers, our education system, etc- and the diminished and secondary role of religion in governing society (ideally).
And of course a few general moral questions (or better yet, observations) of how they treat other people and accept customs and morals we exercise here.
If they show signs of aversion, indifference or hostility to any of these- they get sent back- refugee or not.
Simple really- that way there's no stereotyping- only those who specifically DO live up to our worst expectations are sent back.

In short, this comparison becomes moot (putting aside the comparison between fundamentalists and past refugees is already false- as I stated in the other forum).

suzionline

'Runner, the truth hurts doesn't it? '

I doubt whether you would know as you are yet to face up to it.

King Hazza, you and I appear to think alike, but you will agree that some rednecks on this site want to ban ALL Muslim immigration and asylum seekers, just because they are Muslim?

That's racism to the very core, and is not tolerated by most modern Australians.

Runner, great comeback.

The lesson that the major parties (or at least the ruling majorities thereof) refuse to learn is that it is NOT befitting of a State/Sovereign party to abuse the Human Rights of others, and if one does so, then they have no one to reasonably blame for the consequences other than themselves.

In this regard, I am pleased to see a glimmer of courage from one of the Catholic Churches over Easter whose representative Priest said something on TV like:

" ... We do not believe the solution to this issue is to put children behind razor wire for extended periods. ... "

Were you not abusing their rights as Human Beings, that being by involuntarily incarcerating them for unreasonably lengthy periods of time, then I would concede that firm but fair discipline would be appropriate.

However, as those who carry the fell Spirit of the Transplanted Genocidal Pom within them are abusing their rights, then as I predicted, and in my opinion, you get what you deserve.

..

To the Trolls here who believe you should treat whoever turns up unannounced as you please then have the courage of your convictions and vote for *Pauline Hanson* as whilst I can't be sure for certain, I do strongly suspect that she would address these issues to your satisfaction. ;-)

Seriously, I don't think that you'll get the changes that you seek, such as withdrawing form the *Asylum Seeker Convention* from either of the majors, as they do not wish to be seen for what they truly are, i.e. they wish to be seen as compassionate decent Human Beings, however, at least in my minority opinion, they most certainly are not.

And if not *Pauline* perhaps a LongReach Troll, or someone similar.

Incidentally, going by what I watched on TV not so long a go and hearing their views about how food animals should be considered and treated, they would do well to be mindful of what constitutes Halal/Kosher/Humane treatment, lest they offend a not insignificant section of their meat market.

Suzie- I quite agree.

Though there is undeniably a problematic demographic within the Muslim community, it rather is being stretched to a broader generalization than it actually is.

There are Muslim majorities (or predominant ethnicities) in Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia who are about as devout in Islam as the average Australian is in Christianity.
Of course, hardly anybody actually realizes this, and those who do had to do a lot of digging on the web.

There are much better ways of gauging if a person would be safe to let into Australia than specifically which religion they follow- a better analogy would be how they follow it.

the guards at these detention centres should be armed...and given the instruction to shoot the rioters. That would solve it.

AP:” the guards at these detention centres should be armed...and given the instruction to shoot the rioters. That would solve it.”

Look at you go. I think Belly has a thread asking you what you want.

I could put in a note for you… do I say “AP wants guns and any misbehavior in refugees to result in death not deportation”? Would make a nice slogan for either side yeah?

Yes indeed Jewely.

I wonder whether AP agrees with the death sentence for ALL rioters in our country, and not just the Muslim asylum seeker rioters?

Otherwise the request to arm the guards and tell them to shoot to kill at the detention centre would be a racist issue, wouldn't it?

If Muslims get a hold of "mens" ways of thinking's, your gone. All that the western world has provided, will be taken away. Religion hates women! It looks at you like an insect. And wait until female beatings starts.............then you will see.

If in detention, and they spit at our laws.........out you go!

or maybe we should keep them...LOL

LEA

suzeonline, who are the remaining 'ALL rioters in our country' if you are not counting the ragheads?
A bit pathetic playing the 'racist card'. That would only work if there were non-muslim rioters. Then again, muslim isn't a racial issue. There are European muslims (Albanians, Kosovars), Arab muslims, Chinese muslims, African muslims etc etc. So how is it a 'racist issue'? Have you ever thought about that?

Sorry for not replying sooner but I was in the real world at the weekend.

funny this 'suzeonline'. Any time she is challenged, she becomes 'suzeoffline'.