The Forum > General Discussion > Malaysia Solution or Disaster
Malaysia Solution or Disaster
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
A prominent issue in contemporary current affairs is the asylum seeker debate. Prime Minister, Julia Gillard’s controversial Malaysia solution aimed at discouraging people-smuggling was overturned by the High Court recently declaring it unlawful. Greens Leader, Bob Brown, opposes the Malaysia solution as he does not support offshore processing. As a result to this Gillard is pressing for support from Opposition leader, Tony Abbott to amend migration laws to allow offshore processing. Opposition Ministers are confident Abbott will not accept the offshore processing tomorrow during his meeting with Gillard if Malaysia is still an option. The Coalition is pushing to change the policy to send asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island as he believes it is not all that different to what happened to Christmas Island. The Malaysia solution is looking more like a disaster with the left faction of the labor party questioning whether to support Gillard’s Malaysia decision. Gillard needs to rethink her options because she is not gaining support from her own party members how does she expect to gain support from the coalition to amend the Migration Act? Only time will tell whether the Malaysia solution goes ahead but at the present time it looks as though this is another turmoil idea Julia Gillard has come up with since being elected Prime Minister.
Posted by mel6, Monday, 19 September 2011 5:14:34 PM
| |
Well, here is the latest....the Coalition has rejected the PM's revised amendments.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-19/abbott-rejects-latest-migration-chamges/2906558 (also the Coalition amendment to the Migration Act) Posted by Poirot, Monday, 19 September 2011 9:02:14 PM
| |
I'm with Gillard on this one.
Nothing would stop the trade quicker than a few hundred finding themselves back in Malaysia, where they have probably come through previously. Abbott would do better thinking of the end result on this one. Perhaps a swap, Malaysia in exchange for dropping the carbon tax. Good for us, a black eye for Brown. I suppose it does let Julia off a couple of hooks she has currently hung herself on, so not as good for Abbot showing her as a fool. It would make Abbott look more like a statesman, but that probably doesn't earn many votes in Oz today. Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 19 September 2011 9:59:34 PM
| |
Hasbeen,
You've got a funny idea of what it takes to looks like a statesman. Posted by Poirot, Monday, 19 September 2011 10:33:58 PM
| |
ABC News: "Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has rejected the Government's latest proposed changes to the Migration Act, saying they pay only lip service to concerns about protections for asylum seekers." and, later"...Mr Abbott says the Government's plan will not work, and repeated his belief that temporary protection visas, TURNING BACK THE BOATS, and negotiating an arrangement with Nauru remained the right way forward."
So, turning back the boats (to Indonesia, a non-signatory to the UN convention on refugees)shows deep concern for refugee protection? Wow, that's a lot of concern! Nauru was ineffectual, it was turning back the boats that did it for Howard. I don't believe the majority want to revisit this? The options before us are: 1. Onshore processing 2. Deja vu all over again 3. Malaysia I do not believe the onshore option has majority support. Malaysia is the compromise, the best of the three evils. The people in the boats are made to wait in Malaysia for assessment while those who have been processed and already waiting there get an outcome. Mr Abbott,you are an excellent politician but, please, show some statesmanship. Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 19 September 2011 10:47:09 PM
| |
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/court-suppressed-people-smuggling-link-to-jakarta-brass/story-fn9hm1gu-1226141226482
I recommend the link, it is informative and tells of just how hard the job ahead is. It highlights things I do not approve off in this country's relationship with Indonesia. Those not aware should research, look at the murders of 5 Australian news reporters and the government of the day, my ALP cover up. Look too at the take over of part of New Guinea and subsequent treatment of its people. We also should consider this,look at the idea and methods of Astro Turfing, and expand it past bots . At such times, conflict over boats, we see brand new posters fixed to one subject who often do not stay. Explore too Astro Turfing, it is going to be very intrusive and in fact you may, often, find your self in conversation with a bot or a human acting like one. Long term posters should look at sad news Lexi has for us in trolls thread. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 5:55:22 AM
| |
My vote is with hasbeen, hard for greens and fellow travelers to except but Australia is too.
I have this question, hasbeen and I are fire and water he in my view far right me Labor right, We get in to fights and do no harm. My very intellect is challenged by the green left 12% moral fibre balance a great deal. Any tiny chance, just a little one? Majority views matter, NAH asking too much. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 6:01:48 AM
| |
It will be interesting to see if the Malaysian
Solution gets passed. Abbott won't support it, neither will the Greens. So what are it's chances of being passed? Also as Tony Jones pointed out on "Q and A," las night - there are proposed changes to the Migration Act that take away certain human rights protections. This is disturbing to say the least. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 7:38:57 AM
| |
Perhaps the greatest problem in Oz, & much of the western world today, Lexi, is far too many "rights" human or any other kind.
It's about time we had a few more responsibilities, rather than rights.The responsibility to protect our boarders, & the Oz way of life is one that has been neglected for too long. It is bl00dy ridiculous that boarder busting criminals get legal aid, when most Ozzies can't. It is bl00dy ridiculous that once these criminals have conned their way in, with our taxes paying for the con, they are then given more benefits than most Ozzie get in a life time. Time for it to stop. Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 8:18:13 AM
| |
"Criminals" Hasbeen?
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 8:32:34 AM
| |
Dear Hasbeen,
Perhaps you'd better Google "Asylum Seekers rights," and find out just exactly what entitlements they receive. It may surprise you. As for criminals? As far as I'm aware people with criminal records are not allowed into the country. Except possibly for the very rich - as happened under Philip Ruddock. But that's a different story, and hopefully a one of. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 9:56:11 AM
| |
Sorry folks, they only have rights if they are asylum seekers, & I among 80% of the Oz population don't accept more than a couple of percent of them are asylum seekers.
Has any one noticed that this flood of bludgers is only a problem for the bleeding heart afflicted west, & the biggest problem is with the countries with the highest welfare payments. Don't hear much problem in Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, or other wealthy countries. Try busting into most of them, without the right paperwork, & you'll be considered a criminal, just as you should. Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 10:34:13 AM
| |
I agree Lexi. As far as I'm aware, the people smugglers could be described as "criminals" (when they are caught they are charged and if found guilty - they mostly are - sentenced).
But assylum seekers? How can anybody (Hasbeen included) know they are "criminals" until they have been assessed/processed according to our laws. I think the stats show that the vast majority of assylum seekers (boat people for the sake of it) have been shown to be genuine refugees anyway - not criminals at all. On another point, it seems Abbott has been given access to independent expert and department advice that the Malaysian solution is good, better than Nauru, and will "stop the boats". It appears Abbott just wants 'the power' more than his droning concern for stopping the boats. Indeed, according to Abbott, the experts are again wrong, as too the departments he always seems to alienate. Personally, I can't see how Nauru will stop more boats than the Malaysian option. Nor can I see how processing "boat people" on the Mainland will stop the boats either. In fact, I think the Green's solution would encourage more boats to take the dangerous voyage and as a consequence, more lives would be at risk. Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 10:35:19 AM
| |
Dear bonmot,
I've really got nothing new to add to this debate. I've said it all. All I can hope for is that this matter will be settled some time soon - with politicians finally stopping to make political mileage out of this issue. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 11:18:26 AM
| |
Has anyone noticed our illustrious leader Gillard is screaming foul, that Abbott will not vote for the Malaysia solution.
Although I am in agreement with that solution, I do find it a little strange that she can attack & denigrate the leader of the opposition for not voting with her, while saying not a single word against her coalition partner, Bob Brown, for not voting with her. A very strange morality rules this dreadful woman. Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 7:33:45 PM
| |
Dear Hasbeen,
Thanks for sharing your opinion of the Prime Minster with us - over and over again. We get it. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 7:38:56 PM
| |
Regarding the "moral" stance of Julia Gillard on the question of sending asylum seekers offshore without due regard to Australia's humanitarian obligations...yep, I'd question her morality on that one -
...but then, Hasbeen, you're in full agreement with her on that particular arrangement. Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 7:46:14 PM
| |
Let's leave morality out of this, if morality has no place in a political debate over same sex marriage it has no place anywhere in public life.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 10:36:27 PM
| |
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/abbott-fails-boat-test/story-e6frgd0x-1226142100161
In reading this link it would be both easy and true to gloat at the failures of the ALP in this area. East Timor, the softening of the Howard scheme, much not done well. Indeed part of this story is evidence of that failure. The title of this thread could be questioned,the hight court, now Tony Abbott have not let the scheme start, so how has it failed. What would have been the result if by now most of those 400 had been sent to Malaysia? The link goes much further than reminding us of Labor/ or is it Gillards failures. It has a title inferring Abbott too has failed here. My Bias on display? I truly think this man, his front bench in part, are failing us all, that they in the name of politics/self interest points in a school yard bully boy fight. Betray us all. Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 4:37:16 AM
| |
<< But assylum seekers? How can anybody (Hasbeen included) know they are "criminals" until they have been assessed/processed according to our laws>>
It seems that even AFTER they have been assessed/processed & rubber stamped "genuine", according to our laws --we're still none the wiser! "FEDERAL police will question a Burmese-born Brisbane man who claims to have murdered dozens of political activists while working undercover for the military regime. Htoo Htoo Han used the media last week to confess to the killing of at least 24 people in the wake of a pro-democracy uprising in Burma in 1988. He posed as a student activist, but was in fact the commander of a military intelligence death squad" http://www.theage.com.au/national/second-burmese-tells-of-killings-20110724-1hvdb.html#ixzz1YaZqn2km Though one would have thought that all but the most gullible, would have garnered an insight of their real motives and morals from actions like this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/guards-retreat-as-detainees-set-villawood-alight/story-fn59niix-1226042587099 PS: I do think Tony Abbott ought to stop his politicking long enough to support the amendments to the immigration act. Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 5:33:38 AM
| |
The continued promotion by both major political parties still focuses on a small issue when compared to people seeking asylum who arrive by plane, the numbers of asylum seekers who arrive in Europe, America and other countries much closer to those nations where people are under threat.
"Around the world most asylum claims are lodged in Europe, the USA and Canada—in fact more asylum claims are lodged in Europe (particularly in France, Germany and the UK) than in any other part of the world.49 Asylum claims in Europe have remained fairly stable over the last few years with 269 900 asylum claims in 2010, 286 700 in 2009; 283 700 in 2008; and 249 600 in 2007... ...In comparison, a relatively small number—8250 claims—were lodged in Australia in 2010. RCOA commented that: UNHCR’s statistical overview of asylum applications in industrialised countries during 2010 has again revealed that Australia’s share of global asylum applications remains very small. In 2010, Australia received 8250 asylum applications, just 2.2 per cent of the 358 840 applications received across 44 industrialised nations. Of the 44 nations, Australia was ranked 14th overall and was 17th on a per capita basis ... Asylum applications in Australia increased by around 30 per cent compared to the previous year. In real terms, however, this amounted to only 2000 additional applications. Furthermore, while the number of applications in Australia increased, our global share of asylum applications remained steady at around two per cent. By comparison, the United States experienced a 13 per cent increase in asylum applications, which in real terms amounted to over 6500 additional applications; and Germany’s share of asylum applications almost doubled from seven per cent in 2009 to 12 per cent in 2010." Statistics taken from page 15 of PDF: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf Given that boat refugees to Australia have remained small in number over the past 4 decades, on shore processing remains the most effective, cheapest and humane option. Gillard could step away from her "Malaysian Solution" - the question is why not? Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 8:59:12 AM
| |
SPQR
"War criminals" when found out should be investigated and dealt with as such. I don't think even you would suggest all assylum seekers (arriving by boat or by plane) are "war criminals", but I may be wrong. As to those assylum seekers that cause havoc, chaos and destruction of property while awaiting their application to be processed (albeit it sometimes takes years), I agree with Minister Bowen ... it does not do their case any favour and in fact can be used to refuse the application. Do you agree? . Ammonite Those figures you presented are an eye-opener, appreciate the homework. I think Gillard wants to pursue the "Malaysian Solution" because it has been argued quite forcibly (by Australian, Malaysian and Indonesian officials) that it is the best thing they have got to 'stop the boats'. Stopping the boats (and the antics of the people smugglers) is what everybody appeared to want, not so long ago. I agree, on-shore processing is effective, cheaper and more humane - but it will not 'stop the boats'. In fact, on-shore processing would most likely lead to more boats, more people smuggling, and more tragedies at sea. Would like your thoughts. Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 9:53:45 AM
| |
Bonmot
On other threads I have recommended that the savings of $ through on-shore processing be used to better facilitate working WITH Indonesian and Malaysian governments to establish refuges where people do not feel so threatened for their lives that they believe their only hope is on leaky boats. I wish there was a magic bullet solution, however this idea of "stopping the boats" does not and has been proven not to work. Best deal with the situation at its inception rather than try and deal with the consequences of over-crowded and appalling refugees camps as they are at present in the aforementioned countries. Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:04:19 AM
| |
Malaysia would certainly 'stop the boats' but is it a solution to the issue of asylum seekers? What about the many more 1000s of visa overstayers who fly in. It is much better for refugees not to go by boat, many of them unsafe, and certainly not a place for unaccompanied children. I always wonder why those who choose boats, who are cashed up by comparison to those in refugee camps around the world, don't just fly in - the airfare is cheaper from Indonesia. Others do and stay if credentials are legitimate.
The irony in all this is Abbott's opposition to changes that enable Malaysia is one of the only issues supported by many Coalition voters. His rush to oppose for opposition's sake is turning off his own voter base to some extent (probably not enough given the government's record on other issues). Abbott is playing the 'I will only do Nauru' card because it will make the government look bad and validate the previous Howard policy. The Nauru solution resulted in about an 80% positive processing rate for asylum seekers. I hope the 4-5,000 Burmese refugees sitting in Malaysian Camps who were promised asylum in Australia are still able to take up the offer regardless of the outcome of the policy wrangle. Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:08:51 AM
| |
Isn't it amazing - Abbott has suddenly become more concerned about the human rights of asylum seekers than about turning them around! Would it be cynical of me to think this might be more about putting the boot into Gillard and advancing his own political ambition than anything else?
Posted by landrights4all, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:23:51 AM
| |
Perish the thought, landrights4all.
Tony's altruism is coming from exactly the same place as Julia's new found concern of the risks to boat people on the high seas. Deliberately seeking to send asylum seekers to countries that aren't signatories to the Human Rights Convention somewhat tarnishes her "altruistic" purpose. Tony's idea of relegating our unwanted flotsam to a downtrodden pock-marked island previously fleeced of its mineral wealth by the West is much more humane (in his opinion). "Offshore Processing" - now there's a term to warm the cockles of your heart. Dehumanising asylum-seekers is only the first part of the equation, and all the rest follows in unison. Altruism is a ploy used by pollies to further their political imperatives. Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:42:47 AM
| |
"Altruism is a ploy used by pollies to further their political imperatives."
Absolutely, it just seems some are less altruistic than others. Poirot, we shared a lovely evening meal last night with a small group of neighbours - one couple an Aussie with a Malaysian spouse, of long and renown standing. Let there be no doubt - the 'unspoken' insinuations, inferrences and dog-whistling exercised by Australia's alternative government are not going down too well in Malaysia right now. Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:06:49 AM
| |
Forgive me if I appear rude, it is not by intention.
Forgive me if my words annoy, for that I do not care. We talk in terms of two party preferred. We do so because currently, in the end it comes down to that. The winner of that race wins government. Once in government its task? To first as much as possible serve us all, that is not possible ever. Both sides tend to please most those they owe or need support from to stay in office. On some issues, enough will/do change their vote on single issues. This is such a case. John Winston Howard, on this issue alone, would still be Prime Minister, without Work Choices. Here, as unfortunate as I find it is the truth. Labor- left- is split beyond repair on this single issue. Tony Abbott did this, by taking a natural fear more have than do not. And riding it like a race horse. Today he rides it in to the house,with Bob Brown on it too. Once unthinkable! The non conservatives must understand, this is much more ,it signals the begging of our end as we exist today. We left of center must fight now each other, because of this and few other reasons. 12% solidly vote green first preference. Many more, from all classes including rednecks to thinkers even proud helping class, people who contribute to good causes,stand firmly with, both party's intentions to stop the boats. Next boat that sinks killing many, if we learn about it. First boat Abbott has towed to Indonesia I will remember today place those deaths at seat Abbott's door and the very left, nothing can stop more coming more costs more anger more time in opposition for Labor Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:02:53 PM
| |
Wow! Bl00dy amazing what the lefties can claim.
If Abbott was pushing the Malaysia solution, you lot of twerps would be all over him, screaming dirty foul inhuman yob. Now it appears suddenly to be the only way of saving this fool Gillard, it's all right to be inhuman to boat people, because it's in your best interests. Who the hell got us into this mess? I suppose you will claim Abbott, because he got more votes than miss stupid. Who the hell wasn't prepared to change policy for the last year? Who the hell is your coalition partner, who is telling you to go jump? His name is Brown, in case you forgot. If you get into bed with someone, you should expect their support, not the opositions. Come on you cynical dropkicks, fair go. I agree with Malaysia, & you lot have been kicking me for it for some time, [apart from Belly]. How about you go take a bex, & have a good lie down, then come back with some clarity of thinking. Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 3:14:50 PM
| |
Hasbeen,
Notwithstanding that Julia's your newest pin-up pollie - and no doubt the whole "let's-send-'em-somewhere-as-long-as-it's-not-here" model has you quite excited....but I've been more critical of Julia of late than Tony....did you miss that? Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 3:23:52 PM
| |
Actually Hasbeen, Abbott would gain more kudos (here and overseas) if he supported the arrangements agreed to by the Australian and Malaysian governments rather than just saying NO.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 3:33:41 PM
| |
amazing how Abbott is now blamed for every bit of this Governments incompetence. Of course the Greens are the luvvies in all this. I suppose kids who have never had a smacked bum always look to blame someone else for their mess.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 4:02:11 PM
| |
Dear bonmot,
Abbott in this case is more than just saying his usual "No." He's saying: "N, Na, Nau, Naur, Nauru!" Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 4:38:16 PM
| |
Hasbeen/Runner I admit it.
It is my fault. Unlike you two I am biased. True! Not pulling your leg! Been that way all my life. No intention of changing. See I remain biased toward understanding issues I comment on. And sadly, very unlike Abbott, awful sin really! TRUTH! Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 5:51:07 PM
| |
Oh dear Lexi, I thought you were going to sneeze - bless you.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 6:25:55 PM
| |
Here's a scary thought ...
If "off-shore" processing in Malaysia (or N, Na, Nau, Naur, Nauru) fell through, and Australia processed the resultant 'boat people' here - should we expect to see 4,000 travelling by boat that would otherwise come in more humane circumstances? Comments? Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 6:27:32 PM
| |
Dear bonmot,
N, Na, Nau, Naur, Nauru - certainly won't stop the boats. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 6:56:48 PM
| |
Lexi,
How can you and other Labor tragics say that Nauru didn't work when all the evidence is clear that it did? Is this because you either swallow Juliar's line that Malaysia is better, or you would simply like thousands more in detention in Aus and hundreds dying at sea? Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 September 2011 10:01:33 AM
| |
SM,
Sorry, not interested. We've been over this ground and you know the answers and the facts, or you should. As long as you keep on repeating the vacuous spin of your party - I simply can't take you seriously. I don't care to interact with you at all. Posted by Lexi, Friday, 23 September 2011 11:07:18 AM
| |
Lexi, you will be quite with in your rights to tell me off.
But yes for you, and me conversing with shadow Minister is unwise and time wasting. He again and again calls us such as Labor tragic, but my honestly held view one of two things drive the man. A total inability to see or under stand truth. Or a desperate need to ignore it at all costs http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/two-new-asylum-seeker-vessels-test-labors-troubled-boats-policy/story-fn9hm1gu-1226144422313 This link, all reporting today highlights distortions. ABC ten minutes ago reporter if this boat was in Indonesian waters why was it not turned back. Ministers and said, it was in Indonesia's rescue waters not territorial, the ships captain has right to name port Christmas island was far closer. Same question same answer asked minutes after. Two female reports asked how can you say Nehru will not work if you have not tried it? They unlike Shadow Minister would be unaware, after all their job is to ask silly question hoping to start a fight, High court judgment , in the view of the very same people who advised Ruddock and Howard, HIGHT COURT RULING WIPES EVERY PAST WAY OUT. never FORGET!Abbott wants, with no agreement to tow t hem back too Indonesea! Shadow Minister finally I can muster up the inner strength to say our last good by, talking to you is pointless truth can not sway you your slanders not me farewell bloke! The Little man defames LIBERALISM! Posted by Belly, Friday, 23 September 2011 12:09:18 PM
| |
Dear Belly,
SM can believe whatever he wants. Frankly I could care less. What I've reacted to in the past is the total nonsense he espouses. As I've told him previously he's entitled to his opinions but not his facts. And frankly I've lost all interest in engaging in any sort of discussions with him. Posted by Lexi, Friday, 23 September 2011 1:08:43 PM
| |
Lexi,
" We've been over this ground and you know the answers and the facts" Too right. In the 3 years prior to the pacific solution there were nearly 10000 boat people arrivals, compared to the 3 years prior to the removal of the pacific solution when there were less than 250. When Rudd took office there were 6 people in detention and now there are 5000. Of those going to Nauru, 75% were determined to be genuine refugees of which 43% were settled in Australia. These are the rock solid facts. Perhaps you would care to explain how the Pacific solution did not work. I think you are in La la land. Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 September 2011 2:07:37 PM
| |
SM,
What part of "not interested," in inter acting with you - do you not understand? Posted by Lexi, Friday, 23 September 2011 2:51:01 PM
| |
Lexi,
I'm sorry that you don't feel adequate to debate the facts, but I am not asking for a graduate in statistical analysis to review and comment on the data, as blind freddy can see the 100% correlation between the pacific solution and the drop in boats. While I know you would like this not to be true, but it is, and you have yet to provide one iota of evidence to the contrary. The fact remains, if the problem is illegal boats, the solution is Pacific. Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 September 2011 3:08:48 PM
| |
SM,
The facts are on the web for you to find and have been discussed many times with you. You either fob them off as "Labor Propaganda," or call them all lies. The Pacific Solution as you know - didn't work then and it won't work now. It cost the Australian taxpayer a fortune, left the refugees traumatised and many of them still bear the scars today - and on top of that - many of them ended up being alllowed into Australia anyway. The boats did not stop coming - Howard had the navy tow them back. Google this for yourself. Nobody except for you and your Party faithful is buying this spin any more. Posted by Lexi, Friday, 23 September 2011 6:30:09 PM
| |
cont'd ...
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just no longer interested in hearing it. As for my "adequacy," to debate. Why should I attempt to debate anything with someone who doesn't want or respect or care for my opinion in the first place. I'm finding that those I don't want to discuss things with anymore are an obscenely small minority and actually don't matter. The world doesn't end, and the more I ignore ignore them - I find the better off I am. So go ahead and stick to your cheerleaders - who are like-minded - just leave me alone. Posted by Lexi, Friday, 23 September 2011 6:59:05 PM
| |
<< The Pacific Solution as you know - didn't work then and it won't work now >>
Some have a different opinion: Mark Latham writing in the AFR 22/09/2011: "One of the myths of progressive politics in Australia is the possibility of a regional solution to people smuggling...after a decade of policy failure, Gillard needs to reject this nonsense and embrace the proven success of the Howard government strategy: offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. As ever in public policy, what matters is what works" Mark might be called a lot of things (& is!)-- but he can hardly be cast as a "cheerleader"... for anyone! Posted by SPQR, Friday, 23 September 2011 7:47:30 PM
| |
What an absolute joke!
You know it's a complete farce when you get Abbott cheer-leaders espousing the musings of a most reviled Labor leader (by both conservative and progressive sides of the divide) to give credence in support of non-progressive policies. Given SPQR's Latham quote is correct, perhaps Latham was a closet Liberal all along (or someone with very distinctive current 'issues') ... nothing like a good laugh to start a week-end. Posted by bonmot, Friday, 23 September 2011 9:00:16 PM
| |
On the theme of "cheerleaders":
It's telling to find the chief cheerleader for AGW, lining-up with the open-borders crowd. Makes one think that perhaps bonmot was a closet "progressive" all along. And all his noble talk of "the science " was just a cover for baser motives. Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 24 September 2011 5:15:31 AM
| |
Stone the crows bloke!
Mark Latham? Mate of our Julia, Simple Simon Crean, our poor imitation of Pyne Fitzgibbon? Fancy introducing any of those dills as evidence Labor has got it wrong! Are any of them members? Latham is a grub with issues keep your camera away from him. Posted by Belly, Saturday, 24 September 2011 5:56:29 AM
| |
Lexi,
By posting here you are debating with everyone in the thread. If you post absolute nonsense, then I have a right to refute it. The evidence on the web is clear as I pointed out. I have provided links to government statistics that show conclusively that when the pacific solution was in place there were only a tiny fraction of boat arrivals compared to when the pacific solution was not in place. You have provided nothing. The Pacific solution was expensive, but cost annually less than 1/4 of what the Labor government is spending on processing and resettling the wave of asylum seekers we have today. What is next? are you going to claim that the earth is flat? Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 24 September 2011 6:19:28 AM
| |
SM,
This is indeed a public forum. However, that does not mean that I have to respond to every idiot who posts on it. It is my choice with whom I wish to inter-act. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just no longer interested in hearing it or responding to it. I can't make things any clearer for you. And if that upsets you Sir, well that's something I'll simply have to learn to live with. Cheers. Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 24 September 2011 10:01:01 AM
| |
cont'd...
BTW: Your claim that the Pacific Solution worked for the reasons you give is nonsense and is incorrect. At that time, there were no major natural or man-made catastrophes. The impact of the wars were at a minimum, and there were fewer people trying to escape areas of conflict and disaster. This you've been told in the past but you simply don't want to hear it. It is very convenient - to formulate one's own premise to back up your own arguments. But it doesn't make it so. News reports have confirmed these facts - and when wars in places like Sri Lanka, Ache, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, increased, so did the numbers of refugees. Don't forget floods, famine, civil wars, all these contributed to people fleeing and trying to seek refugee. The most recent unrest in the Arab regions, for example, Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Syria, are the future refugee sources. The refugees will continue - so what's the Pacific Solution going to solve - it won't solve anything. Eventually the greater majority of the refugees end up being re-located in Australia anyway. However, these are arguments that you brush aside - and continue with Mr Abbott's propaganda in the interest of Mr Abbott's ambitions. You tell me that I have "nothing," and that I think the "world is flat," I seriously believe - it's you that has a problem - not me. Perhaps your head is flat. Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 24 September 2011 10:27:49 AM
| |
Lexi this indeed is a public forum and your words are truth.
I think no matter how much work it takes the only answer is to avoid the type of insults thrown at you. Such as the Gentleman feed on replies. I find Conservatives to debate with here who need no insults who show glimpse of understanding. On the night before Kevin 07 you told me you hoped I was right, I assured you I was. I have often been wrong from that day, most have. I may not live to see it my age and condition. But ten years from now Conservatives will try to forget Tony Abbott and his blind to truth followers ever lived. They will adopt much of Labors policy's on gaining government in 2013. Asylum seeker plan first put together by Labor will increasingly be used all over the world. Until action is taken to fix the problem in country's these folk flee. Climate change by then will be supported by both sides. Abbott in far less than 2 years may be replaced because this cuddle the greens greed in wanting government has exposed him to true Conservatives. Ignore the trolls you told me, maybe just a thought, why talk to a brick wall? Posted by Belly, Saturday, 24 September 2011 1:09:09 PM
| |
Dear Belly,
Thanks for your advice. I intend to take it. See you on another thread my friend. Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 24 September 2011 1:46:41 PM
| |
Lexi,
In 2001 to 2002 the refugees dropped from 4000 p.a. to about 100 and in 2008 to 2009 the refugees increased from 160 to about 5000p.a. No conditions in the world changed from 2001 to 2002 or from 2008 to 2009 except the pacific solution. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what war suddenly finished in 2001 and what suddenly started in 2008 that explains the changes in boats? I cannot find anything. The only conclusion is that the pacific solution worked. Repeatedly saying it didn't is not a valid answer. Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 25 September 2011 4:29:41 AM
| |
I too am leaving the thread Lexi and taking my own advice.
We in discussion or debate, understand listening is as important as talking. Or there is no point in conversing. A body Language exists in every word ,written or face to face. Some are impossible to converse with. For me it is the scruffy religious zealot that corners you on the street, just rants on and on, will not let you move on. Or the Australian door knocking pests we all know. One such group has taken to sending the most beautiful young girls, so friendly and kind! This issue, every one,any subject is never one sided . The hight court action. The pressure by minority's, Greens, middle and upper class lawyers. Abbott intent on Victory his way or nothing. Australians are weary of the one sided barely hidden lie that it once worked it can. No Prime Minister, and Julia Gillard is no Prime Minister, should have to beg to do the will of most Australians. Yes Gillard is ,well I would Be sent to prison for saying! But does it matter,is truth of value? Tony Abbott is an insult to his party and its followers. Better sits in both party's, we could be better served, on both sides if we elected Parliaments cleaners as leaders. So long to another thread that could have asked the question is Australia more important than political self interest. Lexi, it would be best not to answer this post, let it go we can do better. Posted by Belly, Sunday, 25 September 2011 5:30:42 AM
|