The Forum > General Discussion > When is it OK to kill?
When is it OK to kill?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by David Corbett, Monday, 25 June 2012 6:29:23 PM
| |
David, in many ways you're right. But the problem with the Malaysian Solution is that it's "deterrent factor" will only apply to the first 800 asylum seekers, whether they arrive by boat or plane. After that, the rest will still need to be processed somewhere, which is why the government is now entertaining a combination of both policies. As we have already received over 700 asylum seekers by boat already this year, it is easy to see why the government thinks a compromise of sorts needs to be made.
Unfortunately, the Nauru or Pacific solution is viewed critically internationally as it incorporates detention and treads on thin ice regarding our agreements with international bodies. it is also not a 'proven' deterrent and any claim by the coalition that it is, is erroneous. The Howard govt got lucky in that their policy of offshore detention coincided with a drop in asylum seeker movements worldwide. In short, both 'solutions' are very costly, achieve next to nothing as the majority of aslyum seekers who are approved as refugees are resettled in Australia anyway, and Australia benefits little. Posted by scribbler, Monday, 25 June 2012 6:55:00 PM
| |
"Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.--- The Pacific Solution goal was reducing the number of irregular entrants arriving in the Australian waters by boat. Arrivals dropped from a total of 5516 people in 2001 to only 1 arrival in all of 2002 after implementation of the policy. This may be partly due to the removal of the Taliban from power, however the War in Afghanistan itself was a likely push factor. The low level of boat arrivals continued all the way through the Pacific Solution period."
QED. Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 7:33:54 AM
| |
The following link may be of interest to
those wanting facts rather than misinformation: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html The historian can establish that an act took place on a certain day, but this, by historical standards, constitues only chronology. The moment the historian begins to look critically at - motivation, circumstances, context or any other such considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for one or another camp of readers. So it is with the Pacific Solution hence the link I gave - to make people look at global events - at the time and what was actually happening and why. Still some people prefer not to do that and to simply keep repeating the party line. One can only try. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 11:35:42 AM
| |
Lexi,
You keep on dragging out this tired old chestnut. It doesn't even talk about the numbers of boat arrivals, and is marginally more relevant than the weather report. According to the graph, the world wide asylum seekers decreased from 2008 to 2010. Yet the numbers of boat arrivals in Australia increased 50x. Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 3:01:26 PM
| |
Dear Shadow Minister,
There you have it in a nutshell. I'll drag mine, and you'll drag yours - and nothing will change. Boat people will continue to come, they will continue to drown, and die at sea. Because no matter what is said and done - and neither side willing to concede - the biggest pull factor will remain - Australia. A wealthy stable country with a high standard of living. Desperate people are willing to risk everything for that - and they will continue to do so no matter what happens. You'd think that the ocean itself would be a deterrant - but obviously its not. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 9:03:40 PM
|
Now if you don't want people risking their lives on boats, which I think everyone genuinely agrees, it means they are only left with two other options. Persecution or the very place you claim is abhorrent to be sending them to.
With the coalition policy, they either get towed back to where they came from (how is that any different?) or they get sent to an Australian run detention centre (better than Malaysian camps apparently) where they will most likely be resettled in Australia eventually. Hardly a deterrent.
Therefore the matter of people flying into Indonesia to jump on a boat is irrelevant because the people involved are still, for the most part, refugees fleeing persecution with the same options presented to them. The Malaysia solution, which I don't totally support, made the option of jumping on a boat more or less a waste of money because you would most likely end up back where you started. The pacific solution makes jumping on a boat the most attractive prospect.
Furthermore, the real cashed up refugees are arriving in Australia on planes and being resettled the quickest, often not spending much time in detention centers at all. Are they sent off-shore for processing? No. So the question has to be asked, why are the boat arrivals being so demonized by Australians
So accuse the govt of "killing" is ridiculous when the opposition's policy encourages people to risk their lives whereas the govt policy, which was opposed by Abbott, deters it.