The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Greens in the Red.

The Greens in the Red.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All
<<Australia in regard to the asylum seekers is simply repeating the pattern set in 1938…>>

It appears that some Greens think they are still living in 1938 (playing the role of hero in some Indiana Jones script saving Jews from Nazis)

Sorry to spoil your little delusion, but it is now 2012 and getting into an affluent Western country is BIG, BIG business.

And all too often, the Nazi’s are likely to be ones fleeing claiming “asylum”.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 7 September 2012 9:06:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The asylum seekers don't have the status of refugee until such time as they are assessed.

Secondly as the assessment process is carried out off shore while under the jurisdiction and care of Australia, the term "expelled" is not legally applicable.

As per the dictionary:

1. To force or drive out:
2. To force to leave; deprive of membership:

Either way the legal argument that refugees are being expelled is very tenuous.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Asylum seekers being taken charge of by Australians, and onboard Australian property, then taken to a foreign port. Any legalities in that.
Posted by 579, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:48:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank you for your explanation. However, they are have still been expelled, and Malaysia and other foreign countries where they may be placed whether or not under Australian supervision remain foreign countries. That is the sort of spin both government and opposition engage in when they want to argue that a violation of treaty or law is not really a violation.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The Malaysian solution that actually expelled the refugees would be a violation, as would be the no advantage rule. Off shore processing in itself does not legally constitute expulsion.

Off shore processing is permitted, and gives the advantage that the asylum seekers of allowing the committee set up to review the asylum claims to have the final say without lengthy and costly legal appeals to a court system that is obliged to judge on different criteria than simply asylum status.

Also, turning the boats around and TPVs are either not covered in the charter or are permitted.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:34:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And while I am here, Ludwig...

>>Why was the increased Greens vote at the last election disastrous choice? It was the level-pegging of Lib and Lab that gave the Greens their power<<

Absolutely.

The result was that both Labor and Liberal voters were effectively disenfranchised. An outcome that, if you look at it through the lens of representative democracy as an objective concept, is pure farce.

In such a situation, the Party holding the balance of power is required to be more, not less, responsible in its conduct. Instead, we have seen the Greens exerting their influence - not by supporting or vetoing legislation, but deliberately and ruthlessly pushing its own agenda. An agenda that, as I mentioned, was not voted upon by the vast majority in the electorate.

Incidentally, this applies to the "Independents" too. In spades. It has been the most unedifying of spectacles, watching them drive their own pettyfogging local agendas, with their eyes firmly fixed on being re-elected to the bountiful cornucopia of pay-and-perks-plus-super that politicians demand as some kind of divine right.

It is in this light that the electorate appears to be saying to itself, never again. And as a consequence, squeezing the Green vote.

But heaven help us if those pesky independnets remain the decisive factor. They will finally manage to upset absolutely everyone - the Australian people, our trading partners, our friends and enemies alike - all bar the few thousand cockies whose gold-plated votes keep their pet pollies in power over us.

>>Now, if the Greens had just been on the right track, we could have seen major improvements in our political arena with the current balance-of-power setup.<<

The assumption is that Green politicians are somehow different from all other politicians, when it comes to the exercise of personal power. Newsflash: they are not. They are just another band of chancers, out to feather their own nests at the expense of the long-suffering people of Australia.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy