A life boat was recently intercepted By the Australian navy carrying 56 people from- Pakistan, Afghanistan,Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq and Palestine. Young men plus one woman and toddler on board the leaking vessel that they had been traveling in for four days. They were heading to Christmas Island. Firstly two navy vessel were sent to assist the original rescuers, two Australian speed boats. It is quoted that the asylum seekers were told they were being taken to Christmas Island when in-fact they being taken back to Indonesia, well aware that others had been turned around before them. After a day they were transferred to a Customs and Border Security vessel and traveled for three days. Although they were not happy that customs would not let them use their phone, there seemed to be no other complaints.
They were each handed 4 page documentation explaining our border security rules ( in many languages)and were explained to, that it is against the law to do what they were doing.
They were then transferred into secure life boats with a compass, GPS system, satellite phone and enough fuel for the three hour return to shore.
It just so happened that the rescue/Customs vessel ventured slightly into Indonesian waters. Indonesian foreign minister-'Its one thing to turn them back in their own boat, another to transfer them to another and turn them back'. One Indonesian politician claims , breaching our waters,this has damaged our relations even further. The govt of Indonesia has the right to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with International laws'. (Also the fact that one of our vessels was heavily armed, being a Navy vessel. What? were going to open fire?)
Doesn't Australia? Seriously our treatment of these men must be considered extremely humane and fair, and in accordance with our policies.
One last thing.If these men are escaping extreme danger, where are all the starving elderly, women and children who are the weaker.

Gullible nonsense.
Both sides of our politics are intent on stopping the boats.
We know or should the radical left other wise known as the rat bag left use phones even visit Indonesia, to train refugees.
Once known as the Communists these days a shattered rump of silly walks folk using the only thing that works lies.

This rubbish must be seen for what it is a lie.
Rabble rousing by the rabble intent on? I doubt they even know.
End the Boats stop the lies and we will all be better for it.

jodelle,
no matter what ther's no excuse for an Australian navy vessel to be in Indonesian waters. having said so this also applies to every scenario. If a vessel is in strife in indonesian waters than no assistance can be provided by an australian Navy ship. That's the game they want to play & so be it. I'll bet my bottom dollar that if this principle was adhered to no asylum seeker boat will ever leak again in indonesian waters but as soon as they're in australian waters the boats will commence leaking. That indonesian MP who was exploiting the latest hands on hot pipes claims was correct when he said that it was not accidental that the australian Navy vessel got into indonesian waters with so much electronic navigational aid. But then again I watched a Navy Patrol boat run onto a coral reef in Port Kennedy many years ago in broad daylight so...

It's all posturing by Indonesia to get more Aid & money from Australia.

The Navy only has to take these people to the nearest landfall, not tow them hundreds of kilometres back to Australia.

The burnt hands would have been caused by the people protesting when they found out just where they were, as in sewing lips together & throwing themselves onto barbwire, etc.

The Navel personnel hitting the people on the head with their shoes. This is a grave Middle Eastern insult. Something not many people in Australia would know about. I couldn't see any Navel personnel taking their boots off to hit anyone on the head. What an absurd claim.

How would the Indonesians know that the Australian Navy went into Indonesian waters. If they were detected by Radar then the Indonesians must be able to track the Asylum seeker boats.

I see the Indonesian Navy is now going to patrol their Coast. It's about time they used the Patrol Boats we gave them for something. I can't see them turning Asylum seeker boats back though. Indonesia is trying pushing these mostly Islamic people into Australia because they don't want them in their Country.

jodelie: One last thing. If these men are escaping extreme danger, where are all the starving elderly, women and children who are the weaker.

Good question. Did you see the photos of the future Bikie Club members? Built like brick $#!thouses.

Ok steelie & Co. Your turn.

Belly,
"Both sides of our politics are intent on stopping the boats"

Labor did a good job of disguising that for the last 6 years. Any observer would believe they encouraged the illegals.

Now we have the ludicrous allegations by the ABC and some other media claiming our sailors tortured some illegals.

But hey, why not believe the illegals, after all they get here by lying, bribery and cheating and buying false papers. The have a record of lying to our immigration officials. But they would never lie about their treatment, would they?

The sooner the government stops the entry of all these shonks the better. I can only encourage Morrison to be tougher.

Thanks jodelie, I hadn't heard this latest concoction. I stopped watching the ABC when they put that silly little new girl on as presenter. They must have put someone as silly as her on as news director simultaneously.

All I can say is to paraphrase the old song, Tie a Yellow Ribbon around the old oak tree. I'm sure you know the line about "the whole damn bus is cheering". Well, open your window, & you'll hear the whole dam country cheering.

I just wish the politicians and politics could be removed from the issue.
We do not want undesirables nor should we forget that we have humanitarian responsibilities.
Somewhere a balance should and can be found but I think Parliament house in Canberra is not the place to look for solutions.
You need far wiser heads than will be found residing in that place.
I do not claim to have the answers as some on this forum appear to do but I am sure there is talent and ability enough in Australia to solve the many problems associated with those arriving by boat.
We are giving the responsibility to the wrong people, those least qualified and whose motives are questionable.
Take it easy.
SD

Has been:
Well said I too am becoming tired of the ABC’s Dear Heart news on supposed wrongs suffered by Boat People. Sarah Hanson Young should be relegated to the back room with her fellow Greens and not pushed into our faces each night on the ABC. The ABC has overstepped its designated purpose too much in recent times and seems determined to direct public opinion towards its own bent. An ugly example of the ABC gone wrong was the live cattle export issue. It allowed Four Corners to broadcast a collection cherry picked video by an Animal Rights vegan.
The boat people issue seems to be going the same way, the ABC should stand back and let our Government and Navy get on with their job and cease putting Boat people views on our plates every night.

With all that money to count and time spent making sure they arent missing out all those unnecessary bonuses and perks, writing recommendations for the next parliamentarian wage rise. It has been a couple of months. Well with all that it must be quite taxing :) trying to solve such a problem.
Even so they would be pushing for another reasonable, workable solution. The one in place is seemingly successful, a huge expense to us though and one the Indonesian government are not impressed by, especially when we scare them with our big ships returning their absconding people to them.
Maybe we should take offense to their negativity at our putting into place a policy to protect our own, because that is our Govts. right and responsibility.
And just a thought. Perhaps their Government could take a little step out of their grand surrounds, and see what is going on out in the real world. Enforce a bit of control from their end showing a bit of responsibility. And reap the rewards of creating some harmony and peace within the world.

That is why I love this site!
On the first day of a new thread some ignore the facts and throw stones at Labor.
Others fall hook line and sinker for the threads shaky directions and offer other events as proof our Navy is full of criminal torturers.
Lets be frank, who is sure these events took place, who knows for sure we entered with intent Indonesian waters.
Come now folks you have seen the flog Labor style of some, do we forever, against both sides of politics, take the bait like some have here and run.
Its a constructe3d lie.
Our system of law our very lost ver5y left and yes our loving and kind *Australia should be ashamed few*
Would willingly knowingly hold these folks hands on to the hot engine pipe, so would the *victims*
Abbott is proving to be a failure, because he is the man he always has been, the wrong one to rule this country or this Nation.
But some both want the boats halted and to agree with a lie like this!
Focus please a few days before our National day are we to take on face value this threads propaganda as true.

What were Australian navy vessels doing so far away, nearer to Indonesia, in the first place?

Is it not because of this silly Christmas Island?
Surely it's only a liability - why don't we hand it back to Singapore?

If no Australian navy ships are in the area for the rescue and the distance to Australian shores is much longer, then surely much fewer will undertake those dangerous trips by boat.

Shaggy Dog,
You said, "We do not want undesirables nor should we forget that we have humanitarian responsibilities.
Somewhere a balance should and can be found but I think Parliament house in Canberra is not the place to look for solutions"

We accept our humanitarian responsibilities and the balance is in the fact that we accept some 13000 (or now 20000) genuine refugees per year. Even among those there are some who cannot/will not be part of our society and we need to show more discretion in choosing some.

Aus should get some benefits from our generosity as well.

Yuyutsu, "What were Australian navy vessels doing so far away, nearer to Indonesia, in the first place?"

Taxis called by the other end of the smuggling gangs in Australia.

Which is why the 'other end' of the criminal trade in Australia would very much like the government to give a running account of where the patrol boats are and what smugglers' boats have been intercepted.

Here is a nice little exercise for the good folk here.

Would you support the setting up of a processing centre in Indonesian where those trying to get to Australia could come and get safe passage either to Manus Island or Nauru?

It appears most of the refugees who are still making the perilous journey are doing so in full knowledge that they will be taken there anyway but are willing to risk their lives and face a future of indeterminate period of detention. This sound like the actions of mostly desperate people not the 'free loaders' you lot appear so keen to want to portray them as.

Or do you want the perilous journey to be part of the deterrence?

Dear jodeline,

“The one in place is seemingly successful, a huge expense to us though and one the Indonesian government are not impressed by, especially when we scare them with our big ships returning their absconding people to them.”

What an vacuous and petty statement to make. Made even more so because of the fact the Indonesians have nearly 30% more tonnage of Naval Vessels than Australia. While we might have 1 more Frigate, 12 to their 11, they have 56 Corvettes to our 14 and 10 Patrol boats to our 6.

Abbott is playing a dangerous game just to soothe the insecurities of people like yourself. I for one hardly think it's worth it.

Jodelle, there's a simple explanation for the gender imbalance.
Men of fighting age, normally ages 15-60 are overwhelmingly the victims of all wars and oppressive regimes, that's why we see so many men adrift in the world.
Why do you think the "Bleeding Hearts" always use pictures of women and children to sell their viewpoint and why are so many on the other side so against refugees?
The answer is "Because Men".
Conservatives and Leftists both share one fundamental characteristic, misandry expressed as the "Women and children first" meme.
Men of fighting age from war torn areas are the group most in need of protection, that's a fact that's lost in this debate.
Here, have an objective and heavily footnoted link:
http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2013/07/11/male-victimhood-in-armed-conflict/

steelie: Would you support the setting up of a processing centre in Indonesian.

Too right I would, but only so the Indonesians can send those people without papers back to where they come from. If they have no papers then they must have arrived in Indonesia illegally. As the Indo's are not a party to the farce of a Convention they can send them back, as they should. Not unload them onto Australia.

Steelie: This sound like the actions of mostly desperate people not the 'free loaders' you lot appear so keen to want to portray them as.

Desperate enough to place their hands on a hot manifold then say the sailors did it. Desperate enough to say the sailors hit them on their heads with the soles of their shoes. A Middle Eastern very offensive Custom not an Australian one. No Navy personnel would take his boots off whilst on duty, let alone hit someone on the head with them. A very obvious lie.

Steelie: 10 Patrol boats to our 6.

& just where did they get those Patrol Boats from. let me show you.

KRI Sibarau. ex HMAS Bandolier.
KRI Siliman. ex HMAS Archer.
KRI Sigabu. ex HMAS Barracade.
KRI Silea. ex HMAS Acute.
KRI Siribua. ex HMAS Bombard.
KRI Sikuda. ex HMAS Attack.
KRI Sigurat. ex HMAS Assail.
KRI Tenggiri. Ex HMAS Ardent.

Actually it will be good to see the Indo's bring the Patrol boats out of Harbour for once. After all that's what the Patrol Boats were given to them for.
Now if they placed each in Sumer Bay, Murara Binuangeun, Citauteuren, Pengandaran & Sindangharta, they could cover most of the places where the boats leave from. Their Navel People could make a fortune in bribes & escort them out to the 12 Nm limit.

Steelie: I for one hardly think it's worth it.

I hardly think your "Worth it" counts.

If these people had papers before they left & didn't have them when they are picked up then obviously they are lying to our Government & should be sent home regardless of their claims.

Yes well, it should be a welcomed change from being shot at! Don't you think!

SteelRedux. Alright the last sentence was made a little in jest. 'What an vacuous +petty statement' by me. The offending sentence was infact inferring that the All Powerful Government we are apparently trying to work with would be less intimidated by kid on a boogie board.
No doubt they have a monumentally impressive fleet of war ships and aircraft. Thats definitely engaging the big gunns!
FYI I have never been a racist person and treat all humans as exactly that, from then on rely on my own judgment.
Having been bought up in a non warring country, do feel a slight intimidation that war hardened, extremists may deceivingly enter our communities.
And there it is again 'people like you'. If you would care to elaborate id like to understand what you mean. I think 'the soothing of the little insecurities of people like me' (phew not just me)is hardly the issue and recall no 'soothing' as Abbott is none the wiser.
I do think a process centre in Indonesia would be very beneficial. Genuine refugees who have ID and not ten grand for some opportunist in a leaky boat, detention centers even unnecessary, could be processed happily, knowing they finally get the chance to escape this dismal place of death and suffering. Thats a good day for all!

Jay. Thank you for clarifying the gender thing for me. Been niggling at me for ages.

Jayb. Nice educated and informative post.

Asylum seekers tricked by navy. Jan 5th
Michael Bachelard,
Thank you for waking me from my ignorance about those boat people asylum seekers. I was under the mistaken belief that they were on the boats because they were tricked by their own people & had to leave their countries.

jodelie: It just so happened that the rescue/Customs vessel ventured slightly into Indonesian waters. Indonesian foreign minister-'Its one thing to turn them back in their own boat, another to transfer them to another and turn them back'.

The Indo Navy & Australian Navy have been co-operating up until now with our Navy moving freely within their 12 Nm limit. This is just a blowhard over the Spying & having their funding cut back, etc. They are negotiating to get more funding in the way of Aid & Concessions. (See Bribery) although Politicians don't call it that, do they? It's the way Indo's do business. All of the Ports I mentioned previously are with-in 2 hours drive of Jakarta. Cilacap has an Airport & so does Pangandaran. Jumping off places. Great surf along that coast by the way, long rides.

As far as giving them new boats. I think that's foolhardy. They'll get confiscated by the people smugglers & sent back out with more queue jumpers.

Indy: Asylum seekers tricked by navy. Jan 5th. Michael Bachelard,

I can't see why that's not kosher, after all they are trying to trick Australia. So I think two should be allowed to play that game. It's only fair. Or, do the Greenies & their Terrorist cohorts think we should play gullible.

I suggest if the Indonesians want a fight we give them one.
If they challenge one of our warships then blow the so and soes out of the water.
Do we really think they would dare to go to war with us.

Dear jayb,

Persistent little fellow aren't we.

Okay mate, illegal?. It is not illegal for a genuine refugee to enter a country without full documentation full stop. I do wish you lot would stop bandying this mis-truth around all the time. It won't make it any truer by touting it repeatedly but boy does it get tiresome.

As to Indonesia and its military purchases yes some did come from Australia but we are hardly the only source.

“Indonesia is reportedly awaiting the delivery of 30 F-16 fighters, a dozen Apache attack helicopters and 103 Leopard battle tanks from the US and Germany, and is purchasing a dozen Russian submarines armed with cruise missiles. Indonesia has also expanded its Marine Corps.”
http://www.news.com.au/national/indonesia-boosts-military-presence-near-australia-and-ramps-up-efforts-to-increase-its-firepower/story-fncynjr2-1226808529340

Why would they want 12 many submarines? Well Australia has 6. Guess they are getting upping the ante.

Anyone else smell an arms race?

It may well be the case that any money we have been spending on refugees is going to be dwarfed by the cash it will take to keep up on armaments. What a dangerous fool our Prime Minister is turning out to be.

Dear Jodelie,

I wasn't outright calling the statement racist but it certainly had a superior tone that might have caused it to be construed as such. Thank you for your tempering words and your explanation. I should have read the post more carefully and some of your earlier submissions before responding as I did. My apologies.

The Saturday Age, January 18th, 2014.

The Editorial reads:

"Immigration Minister Scott Morrison would have us
believe there are several captains of either Royal
Australian Navy or Customs and Border Protection vessels
who get a bit lost at sea. They sail out of Australia's
territorial zone, across international waters, and
"inadvertently" and "Unintentionally" amble in and out
of Indonesian waters. Do they need a compass? Did someone
forget to fit these vessels with a global positioning
system? It is difficult to accept that highly trained and
experienced captains, operating close to sensitive foreign
borders, don't seem to know where they are."

"The government has issued an unconditional apology to
Indonesia after admitting Australian vessels intruded into
their waters while dealing with asylum-seeker boats. These
intrusions occurred not once or twice, mind you, but
several times, and involved more than one vessel..."

"Australians are entitled to ask why and how this has
happened, and they are entitled to genuine answers as opposed
to the stone-walling, secrecy and obfuscation that has
become a hallmark of the Abbott government. As The Age has
said before, governments that lack transparency eventually
lose the trust of the people."

"Mr Morrison says the intrusions were unintentional and in
breach of government policy. Quite simply that suggests
incompetence on a level that we find bewildering or it
lacks credibility. Here we, chest-thumping about a boat
interception and deterence strategy labelled Operation
Sovereign Borders, and we can't even get our own bearings.
These illegal intrusions are the inevitable result of trying
to execute a flawed policy of turning back and now towing
back, boats."

"Mr Morrison does not reveal however the fact that the navy
took cutody of 56 asylum seekers, photographed and interviewed
them over 2 days, then transferred them to a Border Protection
vessel, which held them for a further 3 days. In all, these
asylum seekers were held for five days in Australian custody,
on Australia-flagged vessels, before they were loaded onto an
Australian lifeboat and sent to sea again."

"This is a clear abrogation of our responsibilities under the
UN Convention..."

cont'd ...

"For years the Coalition refused to explain how it would
execute its "stop the boats" policy, implying Australians
should merely trust that it could. Its policies and actions
have strained relations with Indonesia and cruelled the
prospects of thousands of asylum seekers and existing
refugees in Australia, and now we have breached sovereignty.
Trust, need we remind the government is a precious thing."

You people just seem to be overlooking one very crucial fact, HIOW DO WE PAY FOR THEM WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR OUR OWN!

Our health service is in dire straights.

Our education system is failing with lack of funding being one major problem.

Our old age pensioners are not far from being on the streets.

Our unemployment rate is poised to go through the roof.

Confidence in job security is low.

Our homeless are suffering badly. The list goes on, yet, many of you people are worried about how to best care for these uninvited gate crashers.

By all means have a golden heart, but remember, without spare money they are simply meaningless words.

The only solution for us is to stop the boats, period!

The other alternative is to start deciding what to cut in the way of funding to our own people, the very people who provide the funding, much of which is being channelled into fighting this fiasco.

A situation that has been brought upon us by sheer incompetence, by the very government that most of you do-gooders support.

It needs to end and so far, unlike the past three labor governments, Tony Abbott is proving to be more than just a man of meaningless words.

No Australian Sailor burnt any refugee.
Refugees burnt their hands, most likely, trying to sabotage the boats engine or after being advised to via phone from this country.
My youth briefly saw me used to twist the truth this way, the then meat workers union was a communist one and told 4 youths me being one, to lie to make manager look bad and justify a strike.
Those tactics live still do not fall for the very lost very few who will live by the mantra the end justifies the means , it never will.
We should not let a lie see an undermining of our Navy.

Steelie: Persistent little fellow aren't we.

Of course, but when you're right, you're right. Aren't I. ;-)

steelie: It is not illegal for a genuine refugee to enter a country without full documentation full stop.

I don't think myself or anyone on here suggested otherwise. What we object to is the method they employ to get here. you seemingly over look that & whinge about the other. Deflection.

What we object too is; Documentation. They would have had documentation to enter Indonesia, yet, strangely, they have none when they get here. Does that tell you something?

They have crossed multiple boarders which negates any refugee status. (See UNCHR Article 31.)

The refugees have endangered themselves, the lives of women & children by boarding unseaworthy boats. (Crime: Endangerment)

Most, from Ceylon are economic refugees.

Indonesia is a good country, (hic). It's supports Islam. Why can't they settle there? Indonesia would be a far more suitable country than Australia as far as their religion & customs go.

I see Arjay is back from Syria too, have you said hello yet.

Hi Belly,

<< No Australian Sailor burnt any refugee.>> Copy that.

I feel that something simple and obvious has been missed in this debate, mostly due the flaring up of emotion that has shrouded common sense.

Indo fishing boats are notorious for their exposed engine bay which is also top mounted and aft. The engine exhausts are vertical mounted and go up through the rear cabin and out through the roof.

For the inexperienced it is very common in choppy weather, to grab what they think is a pole and burn their hands on the exhaust pipe. The ADF report treating passengers with existing and similar injuries before the turnback.

Looking at the injuries from the ABC footage it is clear that the burns are across the palm through to the area between thumb and forefinger, a common “grip” style injury.

I suspect that following an ADF inquiry these conclusions will be the cause of much egg on face.

I’m disgusted that those who sign up to take a bullet for us are treated so badly, but I’m also sure they will have their day very soon

Foxy my sweet, you have got all this quite wrong. Respect for national borders is a two way street.

We need to treat our neighbors with the respect they deserve. That is, the respect they earn.

While they continue to allow their nationals to invade our border, there is absolutely no reason to give them any respect. In fact, returning the compliment might be the best response.

For years their fishing boats have invaded our territorial waters, illegally fishing where we don't permit our own fisherman to fish.

Their national are invading our territory with paying passengers, is boats not suitable or licensed to carry passengers. They display no respect for us, & are due a bit of a wake up call.

I think they may be learning we now have a government who will not allow this disrespect of our boarders to continue.

It is now time to bring the message home. We should put the ABC, & SBS on notice. If they continue to broadcast the type of lies they are becoming famous for, their funding should be cut by say $250,000, for each airing.

If they can not clean up their act, & start acting in the national interest, they would rapidly be unfunded, & good riddance.

Dear Hassie,

The government needs to come clean on what it's doing
and stop treating voters as mugs. Blaming news sources
simply does not wash any more.

Steele and Jayb,
This must have been gone over hundreds of times here on OLO.

It is contrary to Australian law for any non citizen to enter without a valid visa. This is the only reason on which we can put them in detention, because they are breaking our law.

We do not detain persons who arrive with a valid visa, whether they seek asylum or not, and irrespective of their method of arrival.

This information is clearly available on the DIAC website should you care to look.

Which is safer, towing a possibly leaky boat 150 Nm to Christmas Island or 10 or so Nm back to Indonesian 12 Nm Limit?

Where do Asylum seeker boats come from mostly?

By bus from Jakata to Sumer Bay, Murara Binuangeun & Sindangkerta.
By plane from Citauteuren & Pengandandaran thence to Australia by leaky boat.

One Indo Patrol boat, which Australia provided to them for the purpose, in each Port would stop the boats from leaving. Maybe. The People smugglers are very good at bribing the authorities & the authorities are equally just as good at accepting bribes. (Worlds 4th. most corrupt country, remember)

The asylum seekers burnt their own hands when they found out that they were not going to Christmas Island. Shades of sewing lips together & throwing themselves on barbwire, etc. Also hitting them on the head with their shoes? This is a Middle Eastern Custom, not an Australian Custom. It is the most grievous insult that can be given to a Muslim. Who in Australia does this, most Australians wouldn't even know about the practise.

Most of the comments here are from over enthusiastic fanatic Greenies who seemingly strongly support the importation of terrorism into Australia.

A bit of CDF would tell you that the refugees are lying.

Hear is something interesting.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5AA
Meaning of unauthorised maritime arrival
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an unauthorised maritime arrival if:
(a) the person entered Australia by sea:
(i) at an excised offshore place at any time after the excision time for that place; or
(ii) at any other place at any time on or after the commencement of this section; and
(b) the person became an unlawful non-citizen because of that entry; and
(c) the person is not an excluded maritime arrival.
Entered Australia by sea
(2) A person entered Australia by sea if:
(a) the person entered the migration zone except on an aircraft that landed in the migration zone; or
(b) the person entered the migration zone as a result of being found on a ship detained under section 245F and being dealt with under paragraph 245F(9)(a); or
(c) the person entered the migration zone after being rescued at sea.
Excluded maritime arrival
(3) A person is an excluded maritime arrival if the person:
(a) is a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or
(b) is a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or
(c) is included in a prescribed class of persons.
Definitions
(4) In this section:
"aircraft" has the same meaning as in section 245A.
"ship" has the meaning given by section 245A.

Far too many are willing to think so badly of our Navy.
But while that disgusts me.
Thought so very many have been taken in by the extremes from this issue.
Leaving the lie as powerful a weapon as in the extremes hands it always is.
How many think burning peoples hands, knowing the bruises would emerge was more likely than a kick in the bottom?
Lets not run off new saying they got a kicking!

I agree with Belly in that the publicity seeking refugees take direction and advice from people within Australia on how to burn their boat, sabotage the motor, pull the drain cocks or “burn their hands for the camera”. The people providing these directions are either misguided do-gooders from some refugee aid agency or criminal refugee smugglers.

Yes Lexi, it's amazing just what happens when you replace meaningless WORDS with REAL actions.

You must remember it was Labor who caused this problem, they then spent the best part of five odd years talking about it, trying very hard not to step on Indo's dick.

Well, along came Tony Abbott and Co, with real action and apart from making headway on stopping the boats, he has also made Indo reveal that it does have navy patrol boats after all.

Surely you're not suggesting we just sit back and allow Indo to continue pulling the wool over our eyes, as they have been while the weaker government was in power.

Surely you too want a stop put to this fiasco, otherwise, provide us with suggestions as to how we can continue to accommodate these uninviteds, while catering for our own people as well.

Dear rehctub,

May I politely suggest that you re-read the Editorial
from The Age that I provided earlier. Is that what you
call "real action?" Where was your party when the
Malasian Solution was being offered?

Foxy: Where was your party when the Malaysian Solution was being offered?

Actually Foxy, the Malaysian Solution was stupid idea from the start. It was just a political diversion. I thought everyone knew that. I'm going to the Get Up Meeting on March 17. I'll have my say there.

Dear Banjo,

I did ask you asked and went to the DIAC website;

http://www.immi.gov.au/Pages/Welcome.aspx

I clicked on the Refugee and Humanitarian link at the bottom which landed me here;

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/

Then on the link marked Illegal Maritime Arrivals: General information for people who arrived in Australia by boat without a visa.

This is what I found.

“Illegal maritime arrivals - More information and relevant links will be added to this webpage as it becomes available.”

and

“Temporary protection visas.

On Monday 2 December 2013 the Australian Senate disallowed the Regulations which reintroduced temporary protection visas. This means the immigration department has stopped granting temporary protection visas. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection also announced on Wednesday 4 December 2013 that he has used his power, under the Migration Act, to place a cap on the number of protection visas to be granted this financial year. This means no more permanent protection visas can be granted in 2013–14. As a result no temporary or permanent protection visas will be granted to anyone until further notice.”

Nowhere on the site did I find anything fitting your description.

“Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal” entrants, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.”
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

Well diligent posters, I just had one of those Eureka! moments.
It turns out detailed demographic information is available on irregular maritime arrivals and it's as I thought and suggested in a post yesterday.
"Boat People" is a gendered isssue after all, 90% of IMR asylum seekers are men, the overwhelming majority of those men are aged between 18 and 40, as I said the people who are the primary victims in war, civil strife and state oppression.
So we have here a genuine men's rights issue and it's no wonder all the stakeholders, the political parties, the bleeding heart left and the bleeding heart right and the Quangos are reacting the ways they have been.
Do we think for one second that if these boats were 90% full of women and children that there'd be a second's debate about releasing them into the community?
We have Feminists on the Left and White Knights on the right and both are utterly insensitive to Men's human rights at the best of times and are hostile to Men and Boy's most of the time.
In order to tug at the heartstrings the Left focus on the tiny numbers of women and even tinier number of children arriving as IMR's and when you boil down their strategy the Right are using the tried and true "othering" techniques promote within the community a basic fear of sexual agreession from IMR's.
The Left use shaming tactics to pressure Australian Men, the right use fear tactics to pressure Australian Women.

I'll tell you what, there's no better feeling than having to change your mind after taking the time to study an issue, I guess it's because at that point one is thinking for himself.

Steelie, what part of the UNCHR Convention Article 31 don't you understand. Would you like me to Parse & Phrase it for you. I know they don't teach this in schools anymore as I asked my locale High School & the Head English didn't know what I was talking about. It was written in 1946/53.

The Sentence you refer to is qualified by the following Clauses, "coming (directly) from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1,"

See, that clause makes a big difference in understanding the intent. I inserted the for emphases.

Also the UNCHR Convention is just that, A Convention. It is not a Law. Australia don't actually have to abide by anything in it we don't want too.

G. Asylum and the treatment of refugees

24. The Handbook does not deal with questions closely related to the determination of refugee status e.g. the granting of asylum to refugees or the legal treatment of refugees after they have been recognized as such.

Article VII
Reservations and Declarations
1. At the time of accession, any State may make reservations in respect of article IV of the present Protocol and in respect of the application in accordance with article I of the present Protocol of any provisions of the Convention other than those contained in articles 1, 3, 4, 16 (1) and 33 thereof, provided that in the case of a State Party to the Convention reservations made under this article shall not extend to refugees in respect of whom the Convention applies.
2. Reservations made by States Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 42 thereof shall, unless withdrawn, be applicable in relation to their obligations under the present Protocol.
3. Any State making a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may at any time withdraw such reservation by a communication to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
4. Declarations made under article 40, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention by a State Party thereto which accedes to the present Protocol shall be deemed to apply in respect of the present Protocol, unless upon accession a notification to the contrary is addressed by the State Party concerned to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The provisions of article 40, paragraphs 2 and 3, and of article 44, paragraph 3, of the Convention shall be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis to the present Protocol.

in other words, if we don't like a bit we don't have to abide by it. We just have to tell the UN.

Ok Jayb, so let's for the moment assume they are within their rights to come here.

How then do you propose we cater for them?

It must be comedy hour!

Steelredux starts off talking about the DIMA website but half way through somehow jumps to quoting the Refugee Council!


“Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally...http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php"

Then asks (incredulously): "Nowhere on the site did I find anything fitting your description...Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place"

ROFLMAO

Yes, well, it seems you are looking in the wrong place, if you are sourcing from "the Refugee Council of Aust" and expecting to find anything other than partyline praise for the asylum scammmers.


The Refugee Council depends for its (govt) funding on the constant inflow of "refugees" --no "refugees" no Refugee Council.

How about next time you ask a tobacco company executive to verify the health benefits of smoking!

steele,

“Illegal maritime arrivals - More information and relevant links will be added to this webpage as it becomes available.”

If that is all you can find, you had better look again. If they are redoing the website I guess you will have to wait. It was all there when I found it easily quite some time ago and we would have heard about it if the laws had been changed and there is no other reason that we can detain arrivals.

Your posting history show you have only been here a short while, which may explain why you are not aware that all non-citizens require a valid visa to enter.

I have explained it dozens of time and even quoted the parts of the DIAC website. But hey I will no longer do research for those with incorrect information, they can find out for themeselves.

Dear spindoc,

You wrote;

“I’m disgusted that those who sign up to take a bullet for us are treated so badly.”

What emotive clap trap. I don't think the hearty members of our naval forces consider some yet to be substantiated allegations to be maltreatment of themselves of any description. Purely water off a duck's back.

Even it terms of a slander it comes nowhere close to our charming JWH claiming, wilfully and wrongly, that the refugees on the SIEV 4 had thrown their children overboard.

Dear Banjo,

I am happy enough if people want to take the position that the methods asylum seekers use to enter Australia may well be illegal, however the asylum seekers themselves have not done anything that would be deemed unlawful.

I really don't care how many times you may have discussed this on this site, if you were making the assertion this is not so then you were misinformed. Perhaps the following might assist you.

“While it is accurate to describe asylum seekers who enter Australia without a valid visa as "unlawful" or even "illegal entrants", it is not a criminal offence to enter Australia without a visa. Calling someone "unlawful" or an "illegal entrant" is a description of how they entered the country and determines the way authorities process them. It does not mean they have broken any law. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/tony-abbott-incorrect-on-asylum-seekers-breaking-australian-law/5214802

Please let me know if you require any further clarification.

Dear SPQR,

You were not an especially gifted child were you. But even that is no excuse for such clumsy hacking up of my post.

I wrote “"Nowhere on the site did I find anything fitting your description” referring directly to Banjo's DIAC site. I then put the quote;

““Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal” entrants, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.”
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

Yes it was worth putting it in full again as your eyesight doesn't seem to be what it use to be.

It was at this point I asked “Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.” meaning I had found the answer on the Refugee Council site instead. For you to conflate my two points in the fashion you did either speaks to a confused and dull-witted misreading of my post or a wilful misrepresentation. Perhaps we will leave it up the the readers to decide for themselves.

Steele,
Your link to an ABC site is not credible. The 'so called' professor is a refugee advocate who is spinning to benefit the illegals. Even the ABC itself has now lost all credibility after suggesting there was evidence the RAN sailors tortured some of the illegals.

The sole reason we can detain the illegals is because they have broken Australian law. We cannot detain persons without valid reason and that reason is they have acted contrary to our law.

That is fact and you can spin it whatever way you want it still will not alter. Please explain to posters here on what grounds can we detain the illegal arrivals, if you claim they are lawful.

There is no doubt all you illegals advocates are thick and act against Australia's interests. You know as well as I that arrivals, without a valid visa that come by air, are refused entry and promptly sent back to the place of embarkation.

Dear Banjo,

I'm afraid on this occasion I am a little reluctant to take your word for it.

I have given you quotes from both the Refugee Council of Australia and the ABC Fact check.

All you have furnished at this stage is the claim that some information, in some form, that used to be on a website, at some point, spoke of Asylum seekers breaking Australian laws by arriving on boats or without authorisation, and the fact that you had discussed it a number of times on OLO and had come to the conclusion your assertion was the correct one.

Forgive me but I'm going to need a touch more than that.

Steele,
You know it does not really matter any more.

The illegals have broken our laws and that is why we can detain them. We do not detain those who enter lawfully.

But it does not matter if you accept that or not, because soon the illegals will have no incentive to come and that will be the end of the matter. The actual disappointment is the fact that so many (50,000 I think)got here during the last 6 years of incompetent government and they got here by bribery, gate crashing and lying to our officials. The folly of the previous government was indeed costly.

As I recall, it took years for the Howard government to get tough enough to stop the boats coming and all that was stupidly undone for ideological and silly reasons to appease some bleeding hearts. Quite a few of the shonks died because of it.

Now we can look forward to the problem being resolved again.

"What an vacuous and petty statement to make. Made even more so because of the fact the Indonesians have nearly 30% more tonnage of Naval Vessels than Australia. While we might have 1 more Frigate, 12 to their 11, they have 56 Corvettes to our 14 and 10 Patrol boats to our 6."

What you forgot to mention, Steele, is the severe lack of backbone in Indonesia's Armed Services.

Some time here on OLO we can only laugh at some comments.
Those even thinking we should risk conflict with Indonesia, even counting our boats vs theirs.
Amuse at best, a country of many millions they do not need a Navy to invade us.
Just round up the old rusty boats that make it to our shores and?
Of course we will not destroy our relationship with that country.
Hopefully.
And just as hopefully we will learn to ignore constructed lies used to try to weaken our resolve.

C'mon people, I haven't got all day. I'm still waiting for an answer to rehctub's question as to how are we going to pay for it all.

Dear Banjo,

We've been over this issue so many times in the
past. And as you well know people are held in
detention while their claims for asylum are being
assessed. I feel that all this arguing over "illegals,"
is rather pointless. They may well be assessed as not
being genuine asylum seekers - and in that case their
applications will be rejected. However until they are
assessed seeking asylum (regardless of how they arrive
in this country) is not illegal. We are signatories to
the Refugee Convention and are obligated to assess all
asylum applications. These people are not therefore
breaking our laws, on the contrary, we have agreed to
assess their applications. People may well be "unlawful"
by arriving here without visas - but they are not "illegal"
because they are not breaking any of our laws. Even Scott
Morrison arrives with that.

It's about time that we told the UN where to go and declared all refugee/asylum seeker treaties/agreements null and void.
Then put the issue direct to the Australian people and ask what they want.

Anyone fleeing persecution should stay in the first country that they are safe in especially if they are among people of the same religion and a similar culture. No Muslim should need to leave Indonesia.

no boats now for 37 days. About time all the lefties apologised for their pig headedness in insisting this was impossible. Now the ABC and its luvvies try and make up stories in order to stir up trouble with Indonesia, froth at the fact that they are again totally wrong and ignore the lack of drownings produced by Greens/Rudd and Gillard. I wonder what they are dreaming up regards to the abolition of the carbon tax in July. They insisted this could not be done (including the usual OLO 'progressives'. Should be more humble pie but instead frothing at the mouth and more lies I suspect.

Foxy,
when I think back to before Tampa and siev x and to the false accusation by Tony Kevin, Marilyn Sheperd and her ilk. they even claimed our navy ignored survivors in the water. Then after trying to portray the illegals as the poor and desperate they were claiming racism by our rescue people because of search and rescue attempts off Cape York and reckoned we ignored others several thousand Kls away.

The lies, spin and distortion have come thick and fast from the illegals advocates over the years. The simple truth is that the illegals are shonks and con artists, invading our country to gain the benefits we and our forebears worked and died for.

No boat arrivals for many weeks. I must admit I thought it would take far longer to achieve that. Time to congratulate the government on a job well done. But don't rest on your laurels, keep up the good work.

Happy Australia Day to Scott Morrison, at last we have something to celebrate. Goodonya!

No boat arrivals for 37 days. Don't get too comfy with that, weather does play a role in that also. I think on top of trying to stop the boats we must also try & stop the danger from within. The danger that is a very poor mentality augmented by stupidity.
The real enemies are from/in Australia.

Steelie, what part of. "coming directly" don't you understand. I have shown you this a dozen times & you just ignore that bit.
"
Coming directly means, Coming directly from where they are in danger, crossing one border to a country where they are not in danger." That's it.

Any shopping around for another country for an economic benefit is not allowed & they cease to be refugees. It says so in the UNCHR Convention. read the whole thing, don't skip the parts you don't like.

The Global Refugee site you recommended is one of the most biased, lying sites I've ever come across.

Banjo its a shame you highlighted those two boats.
One Minister resigned because he lied about it.
And both boats are well known rarely argued about, Liberal messes.
You know I support you in this issue.
But weaken your own case by just like Abbott behaving as if the Liberals are still in opposition.
History and polls will note Tony is making a bit of a mess here and in other issues.
However no mud will stick to him over burns no Australian inflicted.

Foxy,
Since when was unlawful and illegal not the same meaning. My dictionary says they are. To do something unlawful or illegal is exactly the same.

You are trying to argue that shop lifting is not stealing or thieving. It is all the same. A shoplifter is a thief.

However, here on OLO, we have seen those trying to claim criticism of a persons conduct, criticism of a religion, or criticism of a culture is racism.

Some do try to change the meaning of words to suit their argument.

Foxy: people are held in detention while their claims for asylum are being assessed.

Yes, & in far better conditions than they would be if they were in a UN Refugee Camp. They are expecting Hilton accommodation because that what they think the West is like. (Days of our Lives)

Foxy: We are signatories to the Refugee Convention and are obligated to assess all asylum applications.

Foxy, please read the Convention & the Handbook. We are not obliged to do anything. It is a document that says basically, "Look here's how we would like you to treat refugees. but if there are parts you don't like then you don't have to abide by those parts.

Foxy: People may well be "unlawful" by arriving here without visas.

Well..., yes it is if they don't have a Visa. Arrive by plane & you get sent straight back.

Read the Maritime Law I posted earlier as well. It explains it better there.

Foxy: but they are not "illegal" because they are not breaking any of our laws.

It is really, Read the Immigration Act. Also according to the UNCHR Convention they cease to be refugees when they leave a place of safety after they have crossed their boarder. Read Article 31.

steelie: whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.

Considering they would have had to have Travel Documents & Passports to get to Indonesia. When they reach Australia they don't have any. Why not? It takes Australia time & money to then find out just who they are. This is a stalling tactic which is costing the Australian Taxpayer lost infrastructure, etc.

Steelie: the Refugee Council Website is a load of Biases Codswollop.

...if they are legal migrants or UNHCR sponsored refugees we welcome them....if they jump the fence without documentation what reason is there to want them....we don't know anything about them.

In the last month no illegal immigrant has arrived in Australia by boat, nor been taken into Australian immigration authority for transfer to Manus Island or Nauru. Gillard/Rudd had budgeted for 1200.....They also budgeted nearly $3 BILLION for the 2014 arrivals....well that’s three billion we won’t have to borrow this year.

Dear Banjo,

The constant reference to illegality colours public
opinion towards these boat passengers.

The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory)
recognises that people have a right to enter a country for
the purpose of seeking asylum, regardless of how they
arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity
documents.

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered
as illegal actions, such as entering a country without a
visa, should not be treated as illegal if a person is
seeking asylum.

This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers
who arrive without authorisation as illegal, as they in fact
have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum

The Council argues that Australian law permits unauthorised
entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum.
Asylum seekers therefore do not break any Australian laws
simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation.

The Australian Press Council notes that if a claim for asylum
is rejected the applicant can be deported but not
posecuted because "they have not committed an offence."

Refugees therefore can't be called illegal because the
presumption has to be that they could be legitimate refugees,

I'm not using words to suit some sort of "agenda" as you imply.
That argument of yours is not acceptable. You can Google
this information for yourself - it's freely available on
the web.

Dear banjo,

You wrote;

“Steele, You know it does not really matter any more. The illegals have broken our laws and that is why we can detain them. We do not detain those who enter lawfully.”

This is an opinion site and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I have given the facts and it has not shifted your opinion and that is okay too. Nor does it really matter how many times you choose to repeat it it will still remain your opinion.

That it does not hold up to factual scrutiny also does not disqualify it from being put and you can do so until you are blue in the face. Nothing changes the fact that it is factually incorrect but as you say “it does not really matter any more”.

I'm not using words to suit some sort of "agenda"
Foxy,
No matter how hard you push your feel-good compassion the people arriving by boat are the forerunners as part of the agenda.
There won't be any warm', fuzzy outcome & the likes of you will be the first & loudest to call for help but it'll be too late.
I dearly wish people like you could just for a small little moment see the situation as it really is instead of fighting those whom you'll later call on for help, real Australians who have the interest of Australia at heart. It's bad enough some are quite willing to sell this country off but to betray your own country so you can feel good is another thing.

Belly,
Sorry, you have the wrong boats, the Tampa was a container ship that picked up people off a sinking over crowded boat and she was hijacked and forced to go to Christmas Island. The government would not let them land and eventually the illegals were off loaded and taken by navy ship to Nauru. The conduct of the illegals on board the navy ship was disgusting. My only criticism here is that some of the illegals should have been charged with hijacking. We were too soft.

The SIEV X was an over crowded illegals vessel that sank off in Indonesian waters and some 350 drowned. That Tony Kevin, Marilyn Sheperd and Co tried to make out we sabotaged the boat and that our navy came past in the night, shone a floodlight on those in the water and left. It was the same as the new story of burnt hands by the illegals who get here by lying and cheating.

Yeah, Reith exagerated a later event by showing earlier photos of kids that had been dropped in the water and he paid the penalty for that. The irony here was that he did not have to as the illegals sank the boat later and they all ended up in the water anyway, and had to be rescued.

The illegals used a method of sinking their boat so we had to rescue them. In one event they blew up the boat and some died and unfortunately some of our sailors were injured as well.

Anyway we can now look forward to the end of the problem, by taking away the incentive to come here. I have said many times, don't give them what they seek and they will stop coming. I still think a detention centre on Macquarie Island would be a good move. Don't see why the climate has to be tropical.

Even the term "feel good" or the commonly used "Warm fuzzies" are debatable.
Invocation of universal human rights is an initiation of the use of force, therefore an act of aggression.
The universal declaration of human rights was a reaction to Nazism, that's it's context, it's a checklist of conditions which must be met before initiation of the use of force by it's signatories.
When governments, civilian organisations or even individuals choose not to respect universal human rights or even choose not to promote them they render themselves liable to an aggressive and forceful reaction from those who've sworn to uphold the treaty.
Similarly activating universal human rights treaties, especially in the context of this discussion is also an initiation of the use of force, Australians have no say in the matter of immigration because it's been made an exceptional issue, collusion between political parties has resulted in the denial of the people's opportunity to consent, this means all the actions being taken in regard to the makeup of the population are achieved by forceful means.

When a human rights advocate uses the epithet "Racist" they are calling for the accused person to be stripped of their civil rights and treated as an exceptional case, once again they seek to initiate the use of force. Why is this so? Universal human rights are a reaction to Nazism against which total war was necessary and once military victory had been achieved the Nazi leadership and the SS were stripped of their civil rights and deemed culpable organisations.
That's exactly the fate of anyone branded a "Racist" these days, loss of civil rights, no presumption of innocence and automatic culpability followed by exceptional remedies under law.
Don't be fooled, there's nothing warm and fuzzy about human rights advocates, they'll initiate the use of force on the flimsiest pretext and often in pre-emptive actions designed to intimidate and silence their enemies, anything from Twitter smear campaigns to Predator drones.

Foxy,
A couple of points, You wrote, "The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions, such as entering a country without a visa, should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum".

That is correct, but that does not make the entrance legal, it is simply that we do not prosecute if the person claims asylum.

You also said, "This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as illegal, as they in fact
have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum"

Now this is not correct. No non-citizen has a RIGHT to enter without a valid visa. As I said many time it is the sole reason we can lock them up, as the are unlawful entrants, persons that arrive with a visa and apply for asylum are free to go about their business. The UN alsostates that intending asylum seekers must obey a countries laws.

Banjo sorry I am fully aware of both boats and the events sounding them.
My view while different than yours remains an honest view.
I however see needless attempts to incriminate our Navy personnel getting a life here.
Holding the view I do about those boats,and the international headlines they bought think we need to highlight this event never took place as described.
How many sailors, aware of the international focus on our boat people problem would wound refugees in such a way?
I feel I am like my country, a victim of a UNHCR intent on enforcing in part a one world one people policy.
Only pain can come at this time in our history from that act of international sabotage.
UNHCR at the least should let us pick who comes

Well said Jay.

As regards the Children Overboard. I was talking to a Navel Officer & a couple of Sailors one ANZAC Day about that incident. They were involved in the pick up. They said that the children were thrown overboard. The rest was a political mind game played out between the Greens, LNP & the ALP. They were paraded on the Deck of their Ship & told to deign it happened, something about International Relations.

They were Pi$$ed off about it.

Belly: How many sailors, aware of the international focus on our boat people problem would wound refugees in such a way?

You are right. The sailors are read the "Code of Conduct" before they leave their ship, so they know the rules. This is a beat up by Greens & Advocate Groups claiming, "Military", therefore "Brute".

They said that the children were thrown overboard.
Jayb,
Thank you for confirming my suspicions on that.

Jayb wrote;

“As regards the Children Overboard. I was talking to a Navel Officer & a couple of Sailors one ANZAC Day about that incident. They were involved in the pick up. They said that the children were thrown overboard. The rest was a political mind game played out between the Greens, LNP & the ALP. They were paraded on the Deck of their Ship & told to deign it happened, something about International Relations.”

Utter crap.

Here is a report for TVNZ;

“Christmas Island residents alleged unidentified RAN officers had told them asylum seekers had not thrown their children overboard during a confrontation with the frigate HMAS Adelaide last month.

Two anonymous residents had been told by different officers from the ship the refugees were in the water because their vessel had already started to sink, The Australian newspaper reported.
"Whatever you hear - the asylum seekers did not throw their children overboard," one man was reportedly told.”
So do we believe jayb or Christmas island residents? Pretty easy one would have thought.

The over riding political directive from the PM's office was that no material was to be publicised that would 'humanise the asylum seekers'.

That is why pictures like these were only made available to the public through the parliamentary inquiry.

I think those aboard the HMAS Adelaide did a sterling job rescuing those on board the sinking Orlong, a job they could be rightly proud of and one the public should have been made aware of then and there. Instead this directive meant pictures like this were never broadcast.
http://www.safecom.org.au/images/pink-baby.jpg

The mental damage to the sailors aboard those vessels having to turn around refugee ships to await unknown fates has been well documented. This is the maltreatment of our service personnel that seems to give posters here so much pleasure.

Shame.

Utter crap.
Steeleredux,
I have had the suspicion since day 1 & I even stated so here on OLO & I also stated that it suspected some ALP orientated Navy officers to get political mileage out of this to destabilize the Howard Government.
I can't help my gut feeling that that was so.
Your gut feeling may tell you the same , you just can't afford to admit it.

Dear Banjo,

If these boat passengers were doing something illegal, their
actions would be punishable in law.

Since seeking asylum is not illegal, it is not punishable
and if it's not punishable how can it be illegal?

The use of such language may be politically opportune but to
argue that claim is self-evidently baseless. It's to
ignore the wording of the very law on which the claims are
based.

Entering Australia by boat to seek asylum without the
necessary authorisation is not against the law. Seeking
asylum is not illegal. And as Artie Loughnan, an ARC post
doctoral fellow at the University of Sydney Law School
points out, "Illegality in criminal law is something
that is a punishable conduct." In civil law its
punishable by sanctions or damages.

Therefore again, "Since seeking asylum is not illegal, it is
not punishable." If it's not punishable, how can it be
illegal.

Foxy,
You have been around OLO for a long time so am sure you know the actual facts and are simply trying to combine entry with claiming asylum to confuse the issue. Your efforts are amusing.

Simple fact.

Any non-citizen who enters Australia without a valid visa IS breaking Australian law.

SteeleRedux:
Please stop playing the pipes for the Refugee Council and The ABC as both lack credibility on Refugee issues. The ABC is too ready to put Hanson-Young in our faces with her green Agenda. The role of Four Corners in the live cattle export drama was very damaging to the ABC after they fielded video collected by a vegan animal rightist. This has a lot of parallels in the refugee debate.
The Refugee Council is loaded with refugee Lawyers and civil libertarians who see nothing but the phantom of a perfect world.

Therefore again, "Since seeking asylum is not illegal, it is
not punishable." If it's not punishable, how can it be
illegal.
Foxy,
the same principle as opportunistic as it is for this day & age also applies to degree bearing pseudo academics in the public service despite the massive damage incurred by them.

Dear individual,

You sir, without any evidence, slander those who served in our Royal Navy during this time. If you could be bothered to read the Commander Banks' evidence before the Senate Inquiry you would see a man probably less disposed toward the Labour Senators than Liberal. But what else comes out is a person making every effort to present the facts in a determinately apolitical manner befitting the rank and obligations of his oath. Your snide little remark does great disservice to him and those who served under him.

Shame.

Dear Siller,

Putting aside the fact that these are both reputable organisations with intelligent and caring people involved in them, I employed quotes from both regarding the status of asylum seekers to challenge banjo's opinion. All he had to do was furnish counter arguments from reputable organisations and then we could proceed. The fact that he instead clamped hands over both his ears, stamped his feet, and started chanting 'Nah Nah Nah – I am right and you are wrong' doesn't negate the fact that those who have been found to be refugees are not deemed unlawful.

If you wanted to take a little time from your sweeping denigrations to show otherwise I am all ears.

Please note that when the footage of cruelty and mistreatment conducted during our live sheep trade to the Middle East was broadcast John Howard forced it to halt for a year until far stricter guidelines were put in place including having shipboard vets. Was he wrong?

I am aware, fully in fact, some find my view on this issue contemptible.
Others constantly remind me and others of the pain,*questionable at best* of these fare paying would be refugees.
A truth needs stating, no one side of this debate is totally right.
But if an election hung on it, Labor without their current plan, would be unelectable.
Self preservation is never evil.
And self preservation is one major factor in not opening up our boarders.
Another death by gun in Sydney's streets last night, this time from a different ethnic enclave.
My concerns about the UNHC will be mainsteam ones in the next ten years.
In fact the very United Nations, as more and more intervention in to country,s governments and even our family life

[eg do not smack kids, is highlighted
Above all pretense these folk are true refugees robs those who truly are waiting off shore .
Last pushing minority views is bread and butter for the greens but they should know Australia has long ago rejected them 10 to 12 percent is no mandate for madness.

Dear Banjo,

They are not breaking any law.

Australia recognises people's right to seek asylum
and entering Australia without a valid visa is not
a criminal offence.

They are not breaking any law.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5AA
Meaning of unauthorised maritime arrival
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an unauthorised maritime arrival if:

(a) the person entered Australia by sea:

If you arrive by legitimate Transport without a Visa (anywhere in the World) you get put on the next plane home. You are not on Australian soil until you clear Customs.

To be clear, we are talking about Boat People here, not those arriving by legitimate transport.

Now, Boat people have circumvented the universally recognized proper way of claiming Asylum by going through proper channels. Do you agree with that statement? If you do then these people have, morally at least, behaved inappropriately.

What else;
Putting themselves & the women & children in harms way.
Destroying their document's. I presume they had documents to enter Indonesia.
Paying 10's of thousands of $ to a People Smuggler. Then claiming they have no means of support when they get here.
Harming themselves then claiming our Navel Personnel did it.
Purposely sinking their boat so they have to be taken on board one of our Navel vessels.

Australia recognises people's right to seek asylum.

Yes we do. Provided they are genuinely seeking asylum & coming directly from the place where they were in fear of their lives. These people are coming from a country where their lives are not in danger.

entering Australia without a valid visa is not a criminal offence.

See; MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198
Removal from Australia of unlawful non-citizens.

Too big to include here.

Steelie: The Refugee Council & the others that you have mentioned are only a good in your mind. To the rest of us they're the epitome of Bias.

You sir, without any evidence, slander those who served in our Royal Navy during this time.
Steeleredux,
Can you please provide the proof that it didn't happen ? Were you there ? Aren't you in fact slandering people who perhaps are right ? Just because so & so is up high in the ranks is not automatic proof of a high degree of integrity. All I can say to sum this up is that if a boat is going down & had a child I wanted to be saved than I would throw it in the water too to get away from the sinking vessel especially when rescuers are within a few metres. i suppose such logic would be foreign to you but believe me that's what people do. Also, I can not recall any uproar that australian Navy personnel failed to pluck these children from the water & place them onto australian navy ships.

Foxy,
You said, "They are not breaking any law".

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

By entering Aus without a valid visa they are breaking our law.

Traffic offences are not classed as criminal either but, say speeding, is breaking the law. There are many laws not classed as criminal.

To arrive in Aus without a valid visa is serious enough to get the person detained (locked up) and freedom denied. Entry is denied and in the case of air travellers, promptly deported to place of embarkation.

Intending to make an application for protection does not give the person special right to enter Australia without valid visa.

While it is always our habit we again, drift from the threads subject.
It needs addressing still those wishing to come, and the smugglers are having us all on.
The burnt hands issue is a lie.

Belly,
i agree !

‘morning SteeleRedux,

If your posts are any indication, the progressive advocacy business is going through some tough times at the moment?

It’s always good to hear from people who passionately “believe” in things, more importantly to observe their reactions to being challenged. That it what OLO is all about.

I am particularly impressed by your reflective angst and your patronizing, arrogant and dismissive tone, no doubt emanating from the fact that you are more used to preaching to the converted. << Here is a nice little exercise for the good folk here>>, << you lot,>>
<< vacuous and petty>> and << Persistent little fellow aren't we >>.

Mmmm, don’t we just love the “intelligentsia”?

Whilst motivation and purpose are a valuable litmus test in assessing ideologues, the stronger pointers are always the moral/value proposition of topic socialization.

Socialization by rhetoric is great fun, you just have to take any comment or topic with which you disagree, reinterpret the context and change the meaning to make room for your rhetoric.

My reference to treating our armed forces so badly was of course, in relation to the public questioning of their professionalism by the Squalk-a-tariat.

Regardless of how “hearty”(?) our Naval forces are, they are in no position to defend themselves from the absolute flogging these << yet to be substantiated allegations >> are getting from much of our media.

If you genuinely believe that your rhetoric makes room for the concept that our professional forces and their families are immune to repetitive public denigration, against which they cannot defend, then your are entitled to suggest that such concerns are << emotive clap trap >> and for them and their families it is just << purely water off a ducks back >>.

Simples, you have just maintained the progressive lefts long, inglorious and grubby history in relation to our military.

Congratulations and happy Australia Day.

Well said Spin, clap, clap, clap, clap, well said. big :-) LoL

I agree too Belly.

Are these asylum seekers having their Human Rights Abused? Is it OK to lie & cheat your way into a country you wish to corrupt?

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/e/m

Steelie, YOU are not allowed to watch this.

The Saturday Age, January 18th 2014
asks the question, "Have We Lost Our Bearings Entirely?"

"The government had issued an unconditional apology to
Indonesia after admitting Australian vessels intruded
into their waters while dealing with asylum seeker boats.
These intrusions occurred not once or twice, mind you,
but several times, and included more than one vessel.
Australians are entitled to ask why and how this happened
and they are entitled to genuine answers as opposed to the
stonewalling, secrecy, and obfuscation that has become the
hallmark of the Abbott government."

"Mr Morrison says the intrusions were unintentional and in
breach of government policy. Quite simply that suggests
incompetence on a level that we find bewildering or it
lacks credibility. Here we are chest-thumping about a boat
interception and deterrence strategy labelled "Operation
Sovereign Borders" and we can't even get our own bearings.
These illegal intrusions are the inevitable result of trying
to execute a flawed policy of turning back, and now towing
back, boats."

Lietenant-General Angus Campbell, who is in charge of
Operation Sovereign Borders, says he is "very comfortable
there are active controls to ensure that our vessels do
not cause such mistakes or have such mistakes in future."
But that does not explain why it occurred in the first
place. Surely there are already "active controls" to ensure
all vessels on border duties know exactly where they are
at all times."

General Campbell says he believes the errors were innocent,
though he will not venture how they occurred. The Age does
not like to speculate either, General. We believe it is
better to have accurate answers, and that Australians
deserve to hear them swiftly. We also believe in accountability.
Multiple intrusions suggest a systemic issue is at play.
We find it hard to believe it is due to poor map-reading
skills. It is fair, however, to ask whether by cloaking
the boat deterrence strategy in a militaristic guise
and, as Prime Minister Ton Abbotthas done, equating it in
being a war footing, the effect has been to vest captains with
implicit authority to do whatever they consider necessary."

Foxy and steele,
Out of curiosity, I looked at the DIAC website and looks like they are doing an update. That does not mean it will be easier or better in future. The info was easily found last I looked.

How ever I did quickly find the following item which may satisfy most people. Until the update on the website is completed, I suggest that you look up the Immigration Act and any other Acts to try and verify your claim that entry to Aus is lawful without a valid visa. You are the ones claiming they are not breaking any laws.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/82detention.htm

Dear spindoc,

Don't you ever look at what you have written before you post it?

You wrote;

“Mmmm, don’t we just love the “intelligentsia”?”

Then immediately followed it with;

“Whilst motivation and purpose are a valuable litmus test in assessing ideologues, the stronger pointers are always the moral/value proposition of topic socialization.”

Lol. Compared to my petty offerings you are the master.

What I do find a little more sobering is the fact that despite 'individual' basically accusing members of our armed forces of treason (yes, working to destabilise one's government while serving in our military would be a treasonous act) and 'jayb' accusing members of forcing those under their command to lie to the Australian people, you completely ignore them and go after me.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that you really don't give two hoots about the welfare of our service men and women if a political point can be scored and that you really are not the staunch defender of them come hell or high water that you would have us believe.

Perhaps I'm wrong, who knows.

Cont...

Cont...

Let's now look at the reality. We have an unarmed refugee boat full of desperate people and their families, in what must be assumed to be a not negligible danger of capsizing and sinking, being stopped by a heavily armed Australian naval vessel with the resources of a highly capable military force behind it. During it's boarding by highly trained and well armed sailors it is alleged some mistreatment may have occurred. This is to be rightfully investigated with the full cooperation of the navy.

A classic trick of the right is to turn the powerful into victims which you have striven to do in this thread with the words those who “take a bullet for us are treated so badly”.

Essentially you have attempted to take a thread about the alleged mistreatment of refugees and divert any turn it into one about the supposed mistreatment of our service personnel.

After being called out on it you then have decided to up the ante by referring to them as 'defenceless' and bring in 'their families'.

I mean I have to say it is a pretty slick job. So the 'defenceless' and the 'mistreated' with 'their families' are no longer the refugees but our naval personnel.

And just to put the icing on the cake you wish me happy Australia Day.

Whew! Masterful.

As to my own treatment of rhetoric. Whenever it is employed within a thread I have little compunction attempting to return it. The easiest way to get me to desist if that was really what you wanted is to stop employing it so compulsively yourself, but we know that will never happen. Yet I am just a novice compared to you.

Perhaps I need to take your lead and shed any semblance of guilt.

Steelie: Let's now look at the reality.

Yours or ours?

Steelie: We have an unarmed refugee boat full of desperate people and their families, in what must be assumed to be a not negligible danger of capsizing and sinking, being stopped by a heavily armed Australian naval vessel with the resources of a highly capable military force behind it.

Wow, if that's not emotive claptrap I don't know what is. Are you saying that our Navel personnel are presumed guilty because you assume all Armed Forces are guilty of barbarity.

That maybe true in Islamic Countries as a matter of course, E.g. Syria, even now, but the West has grown out of that since WW11. Yes their are isolated incidences & they are dealt with harshly.

Steelie: 'jayb' accusing members of forcing those under their command to lie to the Australian people,

Apparently they were ordered to by the Government. I notice you said, ""Whatever you hear - the asylum seekers did not throw their children overboard," one man was reportedly told.”

What I was told was that the sea cocks were opened after the children had been thrown overboard in order to force their transfer. I would believe a member of the Navy that was their than anything you saw on one of your biased Web Sites. I can tell you that these Navel Personnel were very angry about being told lie. Moral goes down when that happens & their moral was down.

I hope you didn't watch that link. I forbid you too.

SteelReedux,
you're the one committing treson by denying reality thus exposing not only the likes of yourself but ALL of us to a very worrying future.
You are so ignorant that it hurts but you of course are oblivious to the pain, you're already too numbed.
For your information, although I know I'm wasting my time, those unarmed refugees are the bearers of tomorrow's force of mayhem within Australia.
Haven't you heard of silent invasions without a shot being fired ? Those eying this country for takeover have more patience in achieving their goal. They're counting on mutts like you not being able to see the underlying message & hence their continued & unabating heading towards Australia. You & the likes of you are the real traitors of Australia. You think you're acting on compassionate grounds, no mate, you're acting on gross stupidity & ignorance.

I having just re read the whole thread note I have made a mess of some of my posts.
Yet as the subject gets hot, our usual in this theme, lets look at the truths.
Hundreds of thousands indeed multi millions are currently called refugees.
And I have no problems with those numbers.
Unlike most here, I support taking more refugees.
And reject totally, the thought boat people able to pay tens of thousands are refugees.
Can pro boat people focus on those terrible numbers waiting in camps all over the world, to come here legally?
Are we taking their pain for granted?

World wide refugees are a growing concern.
And some openly, say money and a better lifestyle is the reason not wars.
UNHCR and its useless big brother could do much better if they put better governments in place in country,s they flee because of wars.
And in feeding and building economy's in others they flee.

Providing they are not Muslim & they have been properly processed & come directly from UNCHR Refugee Camps. I don't have a problem either.

Let the Muslims go to a suitable safe Islamic Country, E.g., Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, The top of Africa & Pakistan, any of the Stans for that matter, & live there where they will be happier amongst their own religion & similar Customs.

When Morrison gets the boats stopped there will be more places for genuine refugees.

As we seem to be having a lot of problems with the African refugees here, why not stop importing from Africa and get refugees from Burma. Have not heard bad reports about refugees from Burma.

Obviously hot all cultures can or will integrate.

Burma isn't fully free as yet, but it is, a work in progress. I don't mind as long as they are not Muslim. I'm inclined to agree with you on the African immigrant. Some are having a hard time fitting in, although I have met some nice ones who are trying to help the misfits adapt to Australian Culture. I have met one who was disappointed with some of his fellow countrymen in that they wanted continue their individual Tribal hatreds in Australia. He says with some contempt, "Bush people."

I'm not inclined to agree with bringing in future trouble. Lot's of Buddhists would be good. The vetting process should take into account the applicants willingness & ability to adopt Australian Culture. That would preclude a lot of Muslims, I'm afraid.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I credited you with being a thinking person, probably a professional and possibly in a media organization. You certainly present as someone with access to a wealth of research and resources.

So what is it with you? What’s your motivation and purpose? Have you just returned from the Mount with the tablets of stone to educate us plebs? Did you just “happen” upon this site and decided we might benefit from the “ministry of (objective) Truth”? Or perhaps you are one of the latest products of ALP/Greens strategy that is taking their disintegrating mantra to the unconverted by infesting the domains of the “non-aligned” and manifesting as a “super troll”?

My response to you was double threaded. It contained the topic sensitive “blog response content”, it also offered you multiple “identifier” attributes designed to provide the opportunity for you to respond as the professional with an intellect with which I credited you.

There are many in the blogosphere that don’t read content, they just “feel” it, mostly because their entire lives are devoted to burning emotional energy in the defense of the indefensible.

Why did you offer a double post without addressing any issues? You were offered the chance to avoid a response based on socialized “narrative theory” but you chose to go the whole nine yards with rhetoric?

Clearly my initial assessment of you was wrong. You are just another member of the self referential organic networks that make up the progressive advocacy block. You treat philosophy, sociology, science, history and literature, as simply a different mode of story telling and therefore opened these topics up by rhetoric to “interpretation” or the creation of your objective truths.

Francisco Varela described the cognition of such as you, as "embodied action" or "enaction." It is not a representation of an independently existing real world, it is a continual bringing forth of a world which is defined by oneself and defines oneself at the same time.

I acknowledge your skill in avoiding the bear traps but you really do need to raise your game, or better still, change it.

Geesus Spin, ya got that wrong, didinya.

Steelie will never, I say again, never, answer a question directly. That is not the way Islamic militants or their sympathizers debate. The way they answer a question is to deflect the question with an accusation in another direction entirely. I thought you would have known that. That's exactly what our friend steelie does without fail, every time.

Steelie, don't watch that link. I wouldn't want you to get angry & hurt yourself. I'd feel bad if you did.

Hi Jayb,

Yes, sad isn’t it?

You are spot on that the SteeleRedux’s of this world cannot and will not seek information, opinion or fact from outside their self referential networks. The problem is that Steelie “may” be a professional in today’s world. Now that is really scary.

Their condition is well documented in behavioral science, a matter I attempted to bring to the attention of SteeleRedux. Not that He/She was prepared to go there.

If we ever hear from Steelie again, I can guarantee that the very same format and content will be puked out as “objective truth” designed to either impress or intimidate those who they think don’t know any better.

You my friend, are one of those on the “outer”, just like me, well done.

As a form of consolation, may I offer you a small but encouraging thought. In his essay, The Eunuch at The Orgy, Raymond Tallis has this to say;

“Like the eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”.

This thought inspires me, SteeleRedux is just a social eunuch. In the end “The bullshifters and the liars may hold centre stage for a while but in the end they are found out and their contributions forgotten”.

Isn’t it nice to think that for the progressives, they will not be remembered by the history they tried to change?

So much for critical thinking Eh? Let the “Stale Refluxes” of our world forever live on the margins of life.

Dear spindoc,

Sorry mate but no tertiary degree here. Had to do my year 5 (today's year 11) three times and my Matriculation twice. So any attempt on your behalf to 'snare' an intellectual is a waste of energy I'm afraid.

I'm just a bloke who happens to loathe bullies and their bulldust. I see Abbott as one of the biggest and although it would have been nice to trundle off quietly I think voices of dissent need to be supported through what will be a difficult time for our country. If I manage to pop the odd balloon every now and again of one of his many currently crowing supporters then all to the good.

So do I enjoy having jayb go all shrill and do his “Look at me! Look at me!” dance? Yes.

Do I think having the scab pulled off individual to reveal “those unarmed refugees are the bearers of tomorrow's force of mayhem within Australia. Haven't you heard of silent invasions without a shot being fired ?” is important? Yes.

But what I enjoy most is when people, so used to swanning around here aggressively dishing it out, start claiming foul. As I have written before it is a typical bully's retort.

Some like o sung wu respond with a call for greater conviviality which I applaud even if he is still loathed to see the fault of all who transgress. To me that is a positive move. There are others who will just keep slamming away because that is their nature. Well I now happily return the fire when it is warranted. Gone are the days when I would rely solely on quiet reasoning, there are good folk on here that do just that. If you want to 'spindoctor' with lines like those who “take a bullet for us are treated so badly”, expect to be met with the same.

Nothing that should get your knickers in a knot if you are in the right.

So if you want the bar raised or the game changed the the ball is in your court.

Steelie: I'm just a bloke who happens to loathe bullies and their bulldust.

My God, you must really hate your Imam & fellow fanatical Islamic friends. Do they know that?

Don't you look at that link Steelie. What ever you do.

Dear individual,

I have found another of your traitors for you.

“A retired senior Royal Australian Navy (RAN) officer has hit out at the Federal Government's stop the boats policy as "morally corrupt and totally indefensible".
"For our leaders to proclaim personal and religious ethics amazes me," said retired RAN Captain John Ingram, recognised in yesterday's Australia Day honours with an Order of Australia Medal for his decades of work supporting the Indo-Chinese community, and also for leading a naval rescue of 99 asylum seekers from a sinking boat.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-27/coalition-boats-policy-morally-indefensible-says-john-ingram/5220886

"And turning back boats on the open sea and pursuing towards Indonesia, which happened just recently, is not the naval way of doing things."

Hear hear John!

It certainly wasn't when my father served as a naval officer and it shouldn't be that way now.

Gee whiz individual, where are you going to put us all?

is not the naval way of doing things."
SteeleReedux,
The navy is not looking after them once they drop them here are they ? The retired naval officer should do what he is supposed to do, retire & keep his nose out of things he did such a poor job of & left us with the mess.
It's probably due to the likes of your father that we have this silly attitude now.
Australians have proven over the years that they're not against refugees but they're waking up & are now turning against refugees turned invaders for an ignorant religion.

Well it seems we are not done yet with this subject.
I truly am concerned at the constant highlighting of little things or non-existing ones to assist boat people and under mine our government.
Look I would love to insult them the government, but in truth on this issue they act as the over whelming majority wish them to.
Consider how many land in our rubber boat and how many confront them.
If a Cop uses that spray against one violent drunk we understand lets do that here.
ABC to current target of the Abbott-Murdock government, has produced both Liberal and Labor members of parliament.
It too has some true left in its ranks.
But do we silence them and freedom of speech just because our current governments partner/sponsor wants to make more money/have more power.
We confidently, know only the easy led see other than people told not to come spending big to ignore that advise being turned around and wanting to complain about anything to try to weaken our resolve.

Well I guess it's come out how the asylum seeker burnt his hand. He was being aggressive & violent when he found out they weren't going to Australia & got pepper sprayed stepped back & put his hand on the exhaust pipe.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-to-appear-before-senate-inquiry-but-refuses-to-budge-on-asylum-seeker-policy-20140131-31qho.html#poll

These sailors are professionals and they are all fitted out with cameras, radios and recorders. They just don,t stuff up.

crisgaff1000: These sailors are professionals and they are all fitted out with cameras, radios and recorders. They just don,t stuff up.

'sackly.

Jayb, "Well I guess it's come out how the asylum seeker burnt his hand. He was being aggressive & violent when he found out they weren't going to Australia & got pepper sprayed stepped back & put his hand on the exhaust pipe"

However the smugglers and those Australian residents who give them oxygen have already drawn the benefit of world-wide headlines which leaves a lasting impression. That is a tactic used by all manner of activists and by the headline hunting Greens protest party as well. There is no way that those who ruthlessly and cynically played up the false 'torture' and 'ill-treatment' allegations will ever retract what they said and apologise.

All who make false claims should be deported forthwith.

OTB they didn't admit it or apologize when it was found out that they set up the inhumane killing of cattle in Indonesia. That was set up by the Greens hiring local yobbos from the village to kill the beast. They bribed the foreman to let them in on the weekend & film the atrocity. The same was done in a Egg Farm in Britain. There they got prosecuted.

Makes you think doesn't it. They'll do & say anything.

onthebeach. Gunna throw it in anyway
The Navy deserves a 'highly educated apology'
Fair enough the boat people had been through an ordeal, and were upset at being turned back. Despite being well aware of this likelihood from the very beginning of the exercise.
Those who responded with violence, were treated fairly and professionally. Both Governments should be very pleased that civility was maintained.

( The young man with the allegations against the officers, did he have a mobile phone in his possession?) Just referring back to my first post.

Steele and Foxy,
Had cause to go through 'my documents' tonight and came across these which I had forgotten about, am getting old.
Thought they may be of interest to you.

file:///C:/Users/ADMIN/Documents/Illegal%20immigrant%20-%20correct%20terminology.htm

file:///C:/Users/ADMIN/Documents/Immigration%20Detention%20-%20Detention%20Services. Saved 18-8-12

I guess it's a mute point eh.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21295639/no-apology-from-abc-over-boat-story/

Well Mr Scott is in a pickle. Best to admit a wrongful decision than try to cover up a rather large 'arse' mistake.