We're told that thousands protested in cities
around the country calling on the Federal
Government not to deport 270 asylum seekers
and 30 babies back to Nauru.

"Say it loud. Say it clear,
Refugees are welcome here."

More than 2000 chanted in Melbourne.

The High Court ruled that the Government can
(it is legal) to deport 267 asylum seekers
to Nauru. The Human Rights Report found
children being held in detention were traumatised.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/crowds-protest-against-asylum-seekers-being-sent-to-nauru7141778

What are your views on this?

I think it should be a user-pays type of deal with these types of people. If they are truly committed to allowing these people to stay here, let them foot the bill, and the people who don't shouldn't have to shell out one cent. Lets see how many of these people stand up for things if they themselves have to pay for it. Maybe we could ask them "Will you give up your right to any kind of government benefits in your entire life in order to give them to a refugee?"

If they are willing to pay the costs of it so the taxpayers who don't want to foot the bill don't have to, then I think that would be fair.

Why the hell are these people here?

If the Nauru health system is inadequate, why are we bringing these que jumpers here for treatment, & not the islanders.

So a few hundred bleeding hearts are falling for the ploy of getting to Oz & protesting. If governments think this is a protest, just wait until they allow the gate crashers to stay. Then they would see a real protest.

It won't be just a protest either. They will be kicked out of government so hard, they might be able to check out Nauru, as they pass over it.

The ones you should be asking are the new owners of this land: the Chinese. How do they feel about having non-Chinese brought into their newly acquired territory? A lot of money and time has been invested in negotiating the sell-off of Australia to China by Australia's politicians and business leaders and the Chinese won't like the idea of having to share it with people who came in via the back door.

2.000, Foxy, that's hardly a protest and no wonder the Government took no notice.

What's a decent number for a protest?

The problem is complacency, Government has done such a good job of stopping the boats people have forgotten the problems of the past riots etc caused by the invaders.

Also the state Governments have done a good job of hiding crime figures by refugees.

Also I believe some are just stupid and can't see letting them stay is an open invitation to others to do something to get to Australia and stay here.

Time for Triggs to resign and abc to go private. They see making up stories about guns and 5 year old boy being raped acceptable in winning public sympathy. No mention of 1200 drowning and what opening up the trade will do.

I totally agree with Armchair Critic.

Those greenies prove again and again to be so impractical: all that public demonstrations can do is getting you hoarse and sunburnt. Perhaps they don't actually mean what they say but simply enjoy loud gatherings?

What I fail to understand is, why would those refugees still want to come and live in the same pirate country which kidnapped them on the high seas and imprisoned them in such horrible conditions. How would they feel about becoming part of it and harassing others? they should instead demand their boats back, seek hefty compensation for the way they were treated, then use that money to migrate elsewhere.

MrOpinion,

This is 'On Line Opinion' not 'One Line Opinion'.

Once they are fit and able return them to Nauru.

They were only brought here for medical attention so back they go when cured.

Thus our border protection policy is left intact and we are not seen as soft. Of course give the asylum seekers the chance to go back to their own country.

Thank You for your opinions.

I have to admit I'm torn on this issue.

My first reaction was - send them back to Nauru.
Until I was made aware that there were babies
and children involved and having read about the
conditions in that detention center in Nauru I'm
hesitant about sending children back there.
I'd prefer to have them housed elsewhere - preferably
in the community until they are assessed.

Reports have stated that the children who were held
in detention were traumatised.

It's a difficult situation. If we don't send them back
will be appear soft to the people smugglers? If we do
send them back - are we being heartless to the children?
It doesn't appear to be a simple solution.

Hence this discussion.

Dear Is Mise,

Read the link I gave in my opening post.

Thousands protested around the country against
sending asylum seekers back to Nauru. 2,000
was only in Melbourne, outside the State Library.
The government did take notice. Mr Turnbull has
stated that the matter is being looked at on a
case-by-case basis.

Are we really stopping the boats or just shifting are human rights responsibilities to another country by simply turning around the boats and shipping these refugees back to another countries while using taxpayers money to pay the smugglers.
The question of Nauru is not only a moral questions but also has wider implications as well. There is the economic costs of maintaining the detention centres, the cost of transport to and from the island, the upkeep of the facilities etc. Then there is the question of Aus reputation on the world stage which has been badly damaged by our current position on asylum seekers and we want a seat on the UNHCR
By imprisoning these people we have the potential to radicalising them against Western countries and thus the current policy also has the potential to weaken Australian security measures.
So to answer the question let the states resettle the refugees and protect the babies/children, families allowing them to have a normal life without war.

Dear Romingfree,

Thank You for raising such important and relevant
points. Their validity I can't dispute.
And it should give all of us a great deal of
thought. Your suggestions make a lot of sense.

So, Foxy, a couple of thousand in each city is effective?

I wonder why the 35,000 who protested against the 1996 Gun laws in Sydney and the many thousands who protested in other cities didn't have any immediate effect.

A few thousand means nothing.

I recall being part of a 30000strong protest at Parliament House in Canberra where people attended from all over the country.

The protest was about rural issues and Bob Hawke was PM.

We were ignored by government.

Dear Is Mise,

Apparently those 2,000 plus, protesters did have
an effect. Our current Prime Minister is having
the matter looked at on a case-by-case basis.
So the protesters did achieve something!

Dear Banjo,

Who knows why your issue was ignored by the then
government. I'm sure that the former PM and his
government had their reasons at that time.
Perhaps it had something to do with an election -
or the economy. Perhaps you could do some research
and let us know?

These are very poor people who are frightened to go to their old countrys, so they want to stay in Australia so why not allow them to?
Australies are a very very very kind, giving people so please let these frightened people stay here its only 200 or maybe a few more? We are a very huge big place with lots of open spaces and not many people to live there so let these a 200 or so people stay please.

misanthrope - Quote "These are very poor people who are frightened to go to their old countrys, so they want to stay in Australia so why not allow them to?"

HA HA, poor people do not have thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers - Why not, simple answer you have just opened a loophole others will exploit.

Look at the people in the refugee camps next to the country they are escaping from mostly these are poor people. Not the economic invaders we were getting.

Wow, 2,000 people in a city of 3.5 million, clearly we must open the borders because a bunch of Trotskyites, loopy Christians and doddering old ladies think it's a good idea.
Bear in mind also that when the Capitalist media report crowd figures for something the editors support they inflate the number threefold, if it's something they don't approve of they will halve it and if there are two opposing groups present they'll say that the numbers were equal on both sides whether that's the truth or not.

Foxy,
I was wrong, the farmers protest that I attended in Canberra, in July 1985, attracted some 45000 people from all parts of Australia.

It was addressed by PM Hawke, who gave us platitudes, and nothing was achieved. It was the biggest protest ever held in Canberra and had no impact on the government. The protest was about high interest rates (17%) and proposed tax changes. Farmers were going broke at the time.

If government doesn't take notice of such a gathering, why should they take any notice of a couple of thousand people organized by the left wing group of Getup. It shows few are concerned.

Linkt to Canberra protest 1985 from national achives,

http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/print/?ID=19013

Dear Banjo,

The problem was your 45,000 strong protest wan't Chinese. If you had been Chinese Bob Hawke would probably have bent over backwards to give you what you wanted.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for explaining further about Mr Hawke and
the protests.

At least our current PM is going to try to do something
on a case by case basis - so these protests seem to jave
had some effect - or perhaps we have a more consultative
PM.

Foxy, perhaps you could find out how many of these babies were born to detainees who were detained for periods in excess of 9 months.

You see, to have a baby while in a situation of total uncertainty (no place to call home) would prove that these people are unable to help themselves, as its their uncontrolled population increases that is the cause of much of their wows in the first place.

Unfortunately, we are simply a soft target, well, at least we were until Abbott came along and showed some balls.

Imagine the mess we would be in right now had Rudd and co still been in charge.

Incompetent looses who create chaos then move on leaving others to deal with, and clean up the mess.

Perhaps we should just send the bills to Mr Rudd hey!

Sorry Foxy, but I think our efforts should be channelled towards helping our own needy. Not the cue jumpers and their unfortunate offspring.

We cant be held accountable for poor parenting.

OR maybe they are smart enough to know having a baby will give them a way out of where they are.

Let they stay and up goes the population of pregnant refugees.

Send them back.

where were the protest when Gillard/Rudd's policies drowned numerous kids? If I remember rightly the Greens were rejoicing over such 'humane'policies.

Dear rehctub,

Do you really believe that asylum seekers have
children just so that they can stay in Australian
detention centres?

To me that doesn't make sense. There's no guarantee
that they'll be allowed to stay until they've been
assessed and met the criteria as set out in our
policies. To me the fact that they are willing to
risk the dangerous journey in coming here means
that they must be desperate people - running from
appalling conditions. As for their reasons in having
children - I'll leave you to do your own research.
You might learn something along the way.

Fox, "Do you really believe that [illegal immigrants] have children just so that they can stay in Australian detention centres?"

Why do you avoid the obvious? It is so they can get the foot in the door for permanent residency. 'Wonderful Centrelink', free health care for life, accommodation and what have you would be like winning a huge lottery.

There are plenty of welfare-dependent drop-kicks, women and men, already in Australia who use children as a means to a life on the dole and for preferential housing.

Illegal immigrants have more incentive and have already proved through using criminal gangs as their travel agents, tossing their papers too, that they will do whatever it takes to cheat and break the immigration laws.

Dear onthebeach,

Maybe they want to come here so that they can be part of the new Sino-Australian nation. We're all going to have to start recognising our new Chineseness soon so the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

No Foxy, I don't so much think they have children so they can stay in detention, what I am saying is this proves they cant help their own situation, which pretty much proves they would be of little value to our society, and lets face it, we are not exactly in a position to welcome non productive people in, more so now than ever before.

At present we are like a mother pig, with ten tits and a dozen piglets, and your answer is more piglets. Wow!

Of cause those who suggest they are deliberately getting pregnant to gain residency may well be on to something as well, because when you think about it, if you close one door (the boats) they will keep looking for another.

Dear rehctub,

How do you know that they will be of little
value to our society? We haven't given them
a chance. They've so far been held in
appalling conditions in detention about which
there have been quite a few reports. These people
were brought to the mainland for medical treatment
because medical treatment was not available to
them on Nauru. Also their cases are still being
assessed so you're pre-judging them.

Australia has signed an agreement to take in a
certain number of asylum seekers and our Prime
Minister has decided to make a decision on a case
by case basis - so it isn't as clear cut as you
may think.

Of course you can always write to the PM and suggest
that we tear up the agreement that this country signed.
Or we can continue to finance the detention centres
which are far more expensive to maintain then
dealing with these people in a humane way and allowing
them to work in the community and earn their keep and
give their children an education.
The moral choice is yours to make.

Fox,

Both of the major parties have presented detailed, cogent arguments for maintaining the present policy that is saving lives.

Of course the sorry 'asylum seeker' industry, talking especially about the gutter-dwelling lawyers and NGOs that used to extract $millions, $billions, from the Australian taxpayer would be astroturfing like crazy, trying every which way to break the resolve of the Government and the Opposition.

So the new astroturfing talking sheet has on it, 'Start speculative gossip and a rumour that Turnbull is allowing concessions'?

Fat chance, no-one* wants to be accountable ever again for thousands of drownings at sea. Even Rudd has learned that lesson.

*make that no-one except for the grubs who used make their daily bread out of illegal immigrants and would do the same again if they could and don't lose sleep over drownings at sea.

OTB,

Thank you for your opinion.
I can see that you also feel deeply about this issue.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

"Say it loud. Say it clear,
Refugees are welcome here."

Funnily enough that's exactly what the Germans were saying a few months ago, now they are desperate to stop the boats. Maybe they should hire Abbott.

After seeing Tony Abbott deliver his wet dream joke for Warren Truss yesterday I doubt if any country - apart from China - will touch with a 10 foot pole.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Great idea - anything to get him out of our Parliament.
Suggest it to Mr Turnbull.

What is all the fuss about.
Nauru is a Pacific Island.Nauruans are wonderful Christian people.
Oh! Have I hit on something here.
My son has been attending the local table tennis club for the last three years.
Last week the fifty members of the club found the club doors locked and had to go home without their weekly sport hit.
This week club members found out that the Muslim security guard deliberately went missing the previous week as the local Muslims have turned the other adjoining hall into a temporary Mosque.
When the local lads from the table tennis club arrived this week they were confronted by twenty men in white pajamas with small white teapot holders on their heads.
The women were in traditional anti feminist uniform.
Now see what the illegals want to do when they get to Australia.
Aussie bashing.

Dear Brock,

Which "illegals" are you talking about?
People without a visa who fled their
country in desperation, from the appalling
conditions?
Just the ones who come by boat? or the
thousands who come by plane? Or student
overstayers, or backpackers, and so on.
And you do realize once these people have
been assessed they are either deported
of eventually as far as asylum seekers
are concerned they - if found to be genuine
asylum seekers they are given the choice of
one day also becoming Aussies as millions
have done before them.

Aussie bashing?
No. Most want to give a better life to their
families and are prepared to work hard for
it and contribute to this country. You see
them in hospitals, in aged-care homes, driving
buses, trains, taxis, as cleaners, doctors,
everywhere you look.

Most Aussies came from somewhere - right?
New Zealand, UK, USA, Europe, Asia, Middle
East, and so on.

It's only a very small minority
the indulges in bashing and many that do are
already Aussies. People who bash do it not only
to each other - but others as well.
Out of frustration, unemployment, denied
opportunities, et cetera.

What really gets me is that some people buy into
all the myths and crap put out by certain politicians,
journalists, political commentators, shock-jocks,media
and of-course certain posters on this forum.
Constant references, to "illegals" (even though
most Talking as if they're not Aussies,
even though they're citizens
and many are second, third, fourth, generation Aussies.
Then of course there are the small minorities that do cause
problems - but so do other groups - and other causes such
as drugs, alcohol, violence, to name just a few.

Finger-pointing is easy - but how
about looking at causes and deeper issues on how to solve
them. If finger-pointing is your thing - how about finger-
pointing at more than just one particular group, and
not being selective. How about looking at the bigger
picture?

Sure, people commit crimes but it's best to remember no
group is without it's crimes.

Foxy,

Do you ever consider the consequences of the bleeding heart approach?

Which is better the 1200-2000 people that died in the last 2 years of the labor debacle, or what we have now?

There is no middle ground, pick one.

Foxy, two words DREAM ON.

Im not sure what planet you are on, or what drugs you are taking, but THERE ARE NO JONBS TO BE HAD.

Wake up to yourself my dear and remove your rose coloured glasses because there is a crisis unfolding my dear, both a jobs and possible financial crisis yet still you want to take in passengers.

Il tell you what Foxy, Il stick to my thoughts that they have little to offer, you stick to yours, let's see who's right hey!

BTW, our detention centres would be like the Hilton in comparison to where they came from.

Dear Shadow Minister and Rehctub,

History will be the judge.

We'll have to wait and see.

BTW: I don't think they rape children at the
Hilton or abuse people - as the Human Rights
Commission Reports tell us.

Of course the 'illegals' should be sent back to Nauru.

Not only that but muslims should be banned from immigrating and muslims stopped from being part of refugee intake.

When I see ALL the problems in UK and Europe, I despair of how long it will take for our politicians to wake up and stop the rot. The rot being muslim immigration.

Foxy says "History will be the judge" and I agree. More troubles in Europe, more rapes and sex attacks, more crime and anti social activity. Why do politicians not read press reports?

I do not think anyone can list any advantages that muslim immigration has brought to UK, Europe or Aus.

Just how bad will things need to get before decisive action is taken?

Hi Banjo...

You know, any reasonable, free thinking person, including those from the Left, must now realize the risks associated with allowing any further Muslim immigration into this country. Evidence from abroad abounds at what WILL, not 'may', but WILL happen if our government allows this Islamic influx to continue, unchecked.

I, like everyone else, feels for this little infant, who unwittingly is torn between well meaning Doctors, and government policy. That said, medical facilities in Nauru are more than adequate to properly care for this tiny girl. For this reason we MUST hold fast with the existing policy, to do otherwise is simple sending a signal to these criminal people-smugglers to recommence their awful trade in human misery.

o sung wu,

Doctors can play politics too.

You don't hear of the same doctors refusing to return children to the many drugged and irresponsible ferals whose children are brought into hospital and are known to be suffering from neglect and abuse.

The other question that arises is what about Nauruan children who from all accounts are doing just fine.

What is the essential difference where the children of illegal migrants re concerned?

If it was children anywhere else the first concern would be to identify and apprehend the offenders, not send the children away.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

I stand corrected, you are of course right, some Doctors do play politics, and good grief I've seen enough of that in my previous job, with Doctors playing ducks 'n drakes with the judicial process- obstructing and impeding justice big time? How soon does one forget!

o sung wu,

Good to read your posts again. Hope your health and wellbeing are as good as can be expected too.

It is an election year. Wouldn't it be nice if the ABC could remember and try to recapture some of its past glory days? Where the interests of Australia and Australians were not forgotten and it didn't pay exorbitant salaries for opinionated 'Gotcha' interviewers to act out before the camera, making themselves and their rudeness the story instead.

OTB and OSW,
You know all this goes back to when both major parties colluded to not debate immigration issues. They did this because ordinary electors were asking embarrassing questions.

We need to try and make it an election issue and support those that advocate 'no more muslim immigrants'. That is not a radical view.

Perhaps the OLO posters that can see the writing on the wall and want a better future for our grandkids can help promote that view.

I know I will be, at every opportunity.

Foxy,

What a cop out.

You choice 1200 dead or a few hundred detained. You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that Tony Abbott was right in spite of the mounting evidence.

Tough border control saves thousands of lives, Bleeding hearts litter the seas with the corpses of women and children.

Hey Shadow Minister,

What do you think Carl Marx would have said about this?

Dear Shadow Minister,

<<You choice 1200 dead or a few hundred detained.>>

I cannot speak for Foxy, but I do choose the former.

When the choice is between thousands, nay even millions, to die at their own hands against even one person to be tortured by myself or in my name, I unhesitatingly choose the former.

If people are stupid enough to sail the high seas in unworthy boats, then while I may choose to be generous and save them, if for whatever reason I don't, then the least I can do is to allow them to drown and just hope that others will learn from their experience and no longer embark on such dangerous trips.

Dear Banjo,

I would like to quote in part - from Peter Costello's book-
"The Costello Memoirs," written by Peter Costello
with Peter Coleman. He sums things up very well.
The book was published in 2008 and I had the pleasure
of meeting him.

." The political and cultural institutions that
govern our country are absolutely critical to
that attitude of harmony and tolerance.
The reason we have been successful in this country
has been due to an institutional framework that we
have in place that preserves tolerance and protects
order so we are all able to live side by side.
We could not do that without the framework which
guarantees our freedom to enjoy diversity."

Unless we have a
consensus of support about how we will form our
legislature and an agreement to abide by its laws none of us
will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without
being threatened by others.

"Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the
rights and liberties of others - the right to live without
being maimed, the right to live without being bombed - and
as such they forfeit the right to join in Australian
society."

"It has to be made clear that there is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It's the law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution."

"People who can't accept that then they don't accept the
fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.
Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect
the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion
instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience.
But there is not a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants
Australian law in governing our civil society."

"The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.
There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -
Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to
live under sharia law these are countries where they
might feel at ease - but not Australia."

Dear Foxy,

Peter Costello - what a perfect example of a blind leading the blind:

When so-called "religious" nutcases order people around as to what they must and mustn't do in their life in the name of religion, then Peter condemns their behaviour (as he should), but when he does just the same in the name of secular democracy then suddenly it's all so clean.

Give us a break!

Foxy, these people don't need to be in the Hilton to commit rape, its part of their custom, and you want them to bring that garbage with them.
No matter which way you want to twist this, the underlying, indisputable fact is, these people arrived illegally and for the sake of law abiding immigrants, going about applying for residency in the lawful way, they can not be allowed to stay. Full stop!

Fox's solution? All reactive and after the horse has bolted. Open doors and let anyone in, with reserved first places to those illegal immigrants who somehow have the readies to pay criminals $50,000 for a backdoor job and have tossed their papers overboard.

Then close your eyes and put the onus on the police to collar offenders after they have committed a crime serious enough for deportation, which would be be made difficult by the apologists she herself supports and impossible where they have already been given citizenship.

Heads they win and tails they win too. That is according to astroturfing NGOs, lawyers and others who have been making windfall profits (all taxpayer money!) out of so-called 'asylum seekers' - opportunist economic migrants.

Federal Election & Immigration
Immigration will be a Number One issue for voters in the forthcoming federal election and in State elections where Premiers have made commitments without first consulting with the public.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Peter Costello -
gave a speech at the Sydney Institute in which he argued
that freedom and tolerance can be protected only within
a legal framework that is accepted by all.

To be an Australian citizen one pledges
loyalty first to Australia. One pledges to share certain
beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the
rights and liberty of others, and to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have
a consensus of support about how we will form our
legislature and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of
us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without
being threatened by others. We have a compact to live
under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.

In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked in an
interview on the 7.30 Report, "But don't you think Australian
Muslims - - Muslims living in Australia have a responsibility
to adhere to Australian law?" To which he answered:
"This is a big problem. There are two laws - there is an
Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

No. This is not a big problem. There is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by Parliament
under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept
that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia
is and what it stands for.

Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect the
freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals, and conscience. But there
is not a separate stream of law derived from religious
sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society. The source of our law is
the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law.
Australia is not one of them.

Dear rehctub,

I see that you're buying into all the media hype
concerning the mychts regarding asylum seekers.
Sure some would undoubtedly be economic refugees
most likely the ones coming by plane. But not all.
Sweeping statements and generalisations do not
add credibility to your posts. I'd expect that
from our resident nut-case - OTB, but certainly
not from a professional such as you.

Anyway what you should do - feeling as strongly as you
do - contact your local MP and suggest that Australia
shreds the Refugee agreement agreement that it signed,
ignore Mr Abbott's agreement to take in extra numbers - and
don't worry about our international reputation globally.
We've never cared about that when we had our White Australia
Policy.

No Sharia in Oz?!

Why then is ritual slaughter tolerated? When was the Australian public consulted on that?

As for the authorities intervening to invoke Australian law, that is a joke.

For years federal governments from both sides of politics turned a blind eye to ritual slaughter despite the complaints of farmers and slaughtering works, who all demanded that the law and formal guidelines be applied without exception, which required prior stunning to irreversible unconsciousness and death.

The feds capitulated and ritual slaughter with reduced stunning received the nod, of course. Those medieval religions just HAVE to cut the throat of an animal that is alive and kicking. Independents and small works may still drag the knife across a sheep's throat without any stunning at all.

It is worth adding too that the 'fact-checking'(LOL) ABC and the animal welfare rights groups also turned a blind eye to ritual slaughter occurring in their own backyard while criticising live animal exports to Indonesia. The fact that there was a LNP government at the time was only coincidental one assumes. They didn't need that fudged staged video of an Indonesian works either when there were actual examples at home.

Of course there is introduction of Sharia by increments and by stealth. Political parties do want to win those marginal seats.

Foxy,
I don't know why you referred me to Peter Costello's words. I agree with him on this but it is obvious that the Federal and state Parliaments do not, as they do not enforce the laws they have passed.

If one take his words literally, we would be deporting those who practice FGM and forced underage marriage (for example) and we would prevent further immigration of people from the groups that have demonstrated they hold our laws in contempt. Just as I have been advocating for years. Yet governments turn a blind eye to some alien cultural practices.

Although I agree with Costello, I find it hypocritical as I do not recall him ranting about enforcing our laws when he was a parliamentarian.

The Peter Costello that I know - and I know him and
his wife very well - has always been vocal on this
issue. He firmly believes in a legal framework.
Always has and in a secular state. And as you know
not all thingss that a parliamentarian believes in
gets passed by other parliamentarians.

Why did I refer the post to you - because I felt that
you would understand what Costello was saying.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Thank you for your kind wishes, like many hereon, I get sick and tired of arguing matters that are simply common sense. It's not racism, or any other 'ism' it's fact! If we don't take a hard line with protecting our borders, then the inevitable will happen and these detestable people smugglers will restart their awful trade, and many of these poor buggers will be once more, at their mercy with a distinct possibility of perishing at sea.

Foxy,
Yes I do understand exactly what Peter Costello was saying and I agree with that. Our laws must, and do, come before any religious ruling or cultural practice.

The problem we have is that politicians do not enforce the laws. They are chasing the ethnic vote and are scared to upset some sections.

We have made a rod for our own backs by not insisting that our laws and social standards are upheld right from the start. By being too tolerant, we have given the impression that we will adapt to almost any alien cultural practice. Our interpretation of multiculturalism was wrong.

//Why then is ritual slaughter tolerated?//

Because if you banned it for Muslims you'd have to ban it for Jews as well: rabbinical law also forbids stunning prior to slaughter. Ever since the Shoah, interfering with Jews' freedom to practice their religion is something that no Australian government is going to touch with ten-foot pole. Nobody wants to be seen to be seen as persecuting Jews these days.

Here's one link that explains exactly what sharia
law is:

htto://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/23/explainer-what-sharia-law

And here's another link that explains what ritual slaughter is:

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/ritual_slaughter.php

cont'd ...

Please excuse the typo in my previous post.
Here's the link again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/2014/09/23/explainer-what-sharia-law

I'll try again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/23/explainer-what-sharia-law

Dear Banjo,

Peter Costello's eighteen years in parliament
- in Opposition and in Government confirmed
him in the conviction formed in his youth that
politics for all its rough edges is a civilised
and civilising calling. Despite all the obloquy
shovelled on the head of politicians - they are
men and women who work the machinery of our
Liberal democracy way of life.

They reflect public opinion - and at their best
lead public opinion - and transmute it into laws
that shape our society and our country. He has devoted
himself in Parliament to liberalising our economy to
laying a basis for the prosperity of future generations,
and to heightening the respect the world pays to, and
owes, our country.

Peter Costello has discussed some of the unresolved
problems that face us, especially addressing asylum
seekers and indigenous disadvantage and dealing with
the structure of our federalism. He stressed the fact
that we must deal with these to move forward as a free,
fair and vibrant society. Peter Costello has no doubt
we can find the solutions that suit us, provided we
do not succumb to the siren calls of demagogues,
charlatans, and ideologues.

Costello tells us that the achievements of the past
decade have laid an extraordinary foundation.
Properly preserved and built on,
we now have opportunities we never had
before in Australia's history. He states that the best
years for our country are still in front of us.

I believe him. As does Mr Turnbull - when he tells us
that this is a very exciting period for us and
our country to be in.

I would rather look at the future through rose-coloured
glasses than bleakness. As the old adage states -
Two men looked through the jail house bars.
One saw mud, the other stars.

You know what I would rather see.

Fox,

You need to be aware that the stunning that was previously mandated and is vastly preferred by producers and processors leaves no possibility whatsoever of any recovery from immediate deep unconsciousness that ends in death.

Ritual slaughter is less than that as I intimated earlier and I outlined why.

Toni Lavis, "Because if you banned it for Muslims you'd have to ban it for Jews as well"

Stuff them and the horse they rode up on as well!

Some may not realise that the Standard mandated certain conditions, no 'ifs' or 'buts' for humane slaughter. Federal and State DPIs had been informing their ministers for years of the problem and were routinely ignored. The DPIs supported the Standard of course.

It wasn't that ritual slaughter was banned but that it did NOT meet the Standard and hence not only could not be performed, but a works could lose its licence to operate.

All stakeholders were strongly motivated towards the best treatment of animals during transport and handling and in final slaughter.

While humane considerations would have ruled anyhow, all have a vested interest in kind handling because to do otherwise results in meat losses and poor prices through bruising, tough meat from stress and so on, including the risk to the operator (slaughterman).

For slaughter, NOTHING less than stunning to irreversible unconsciousness absolutely guaranteed and progressing to death was acceptable and nor should it be now in Australia.

If any of the political parties ever want to test the Australian electorate for a mandate for ritual slaughter they can go right ahead and find themselves out on the street. It is not going to happen, because like immigration the major parties have a behind the doors agreement to not allow the electorate a say on it. The media plays the same game and self-censors without any need for direction. Democracy? BS!

Dear Foxy,

<<Peter Costello -
gave a speech at the Sydney Institute in which he argued
that freedom and tolerance can be protected only within
a legal framework that is accepted by all.>>

That's laziness on his part. Off the top of my head I can think of several different possible methods to protect freedom and tolerance.
Now if what he said was true, the implication would be that there is no way to protect freedom and tolerance, because no legal framework was ever accepted by all.

<<To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first to Australia.>>

The vast majority of Australian citizens pledged nothing - they were simply born here or to an Australian parent.

Myself, the only loyalty I pledged on becoming an Australian citizen was to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors.

<<One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the rights and liberty of others, and to respect the rule of law.>>

I have no problem whatsoever with the rights and liberty of others, but as for such beliefs which I do not hold and the respect which I do not have, indeed today I could not have become an Australian citizen, yet at the time I did, citizenship was not conditioned on any beliefs nor respect.

<<Unless we have a consensus of support...>>

Well there is no consensus, never was, nor is it statistically ever probable, so what are you going to do?
May I remind you that 'consensus' means 100% agreement, not 99.99%!

<<We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.>>

That's a fairy-tale: show me where that compact is, if you can.

<<In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.>>

Fact is, that our rights and liberties are only partially protected.
In practice, individuals, companies and government routinely violate our liberties and nobody can truly assure us protection.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<There is one law we are all expected to abide by>>

So expects Costello, so expect Muslims too - and both wave a big stick.

Both Costello and Muslims may have great ideas, but to the extent they use violence to enforce them, it is wrong and makes them no different from each other.

<<If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.>>

Oh please don't take it so personally because my claims are not specific to Australia: I do not accept the fundamentals of any body of people which enforces itself on others by violence - this includes every state presently on earth.

<<Our state is a secular state.>>

But that's not the issue - the issue is that it is violent, something it shares in common even with states that enforce Sharia law.

<<As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship>>

If and when it likes. I don't find this sufficiently assuring.

Foxy,
Your last post appears to be your interpretation of Costello's words from his book. This is where I disagree with Costello.

Firstly politicians do not reflect public opinion. In fact they seem to go out of their way to do the opposite. For example, if there was a vote on muslim immigration/refugees at present there would be an overwhelming NO vote. So we will not get a vote.

What achievements of the past decade? The only good thing has been that Abbott/Morison stopped the boats, after the previous government allowed an invasion of some 50000 illegals. The best years in Aus were from 1950 to 1970, where we saw massive expansion of our electricity grid, many labour saving machines and infrastructure built and high living standards with home ownership within reach. Since then we have gone down hill, both socially and industrially.

There is nothing happening either here or worldwide that indicates there are looming "opportunities like which we have never had before", as you claim.
Pray tell what gives you or Costello reason to be opptomistic about the future. I see a bleak future for our GGGrandkids, especially in social cohesion and living standards. The European problems will arrive here with continued immigration.

Australia desperately needs politicians that will put the long term interests of our citizens before their own.

Foxy, the 1200 allowed in (against my better judgment) are invitees. Those in detention entered, or at least tried to enter illegally. Game, Set, Match!
There is no credible argument for letting them in because the risks far outweigh the benefits. The risk of reopening the Rud debacle. The risk of allowing people in with no real way of proving who they are, or even where they came from. The risk of not knowing their past history as far as their involvement in terrorism.
Sorry Foxy but you have backed yourself into a corner on this one so you should save face and get the hell out as you will never win this argument.

Dear rehctub,

This isn't about winning. This is about expressing
an opinion. In any case with our Prime Minster
looking at things on a case by case basis. I feel
as if I've already won!

So Foxy, if as you say "I've already won" does this mean the discussion has run its race, as far as your involvement goes.

Now if it has, then that's fine for you, however, not being sure of your personal situation, working, retired, may I suggest that the next time you go to the chemist to fill a script, and the fee has risen, due to the slashing/removal of gov subsidy, or if the school fees for your grandchildren's education goes up, or someone you know is wasting away in a government funded nursing home, just remember, you had a hand in that, because you have supported the distribution of OUR TAXES to illegals.
You see money is one of those luxuries you can only spend once, and given our revenue streams are dwindling, and our hand outs are increasing, you are helping to burn the candle from both ends.
I just hope you and I don't live long enough to see the inevitable end result, although I do fear for my children and grand child.
Say a prayer for us Foxy because we are loosing the battle of revenue V expenditure.

Dear Banjo,

Wrong again.

It is not "my interpretation" that I've given
you of Peter Costello"s book.

It's actually word for word taken from
his book. No "interpretation" was
necessary. It's crystal clear.
Get hold of a copy and see for yourself.

Dear rehctub,

It is up to our government and current PM to
decide what they will decide to do with the
asylum seekers on a case-by-case basis.

As far as me and my family
have been concerned - we have always worked
hard and have never asked for any "hand-outs."
We've managed to educate ourselves and our
children, have private medical insurance that we've
paid for. We've paid taxes, bought our home,
and so on, and been independent and supported our
selves. We have worked full-time all of our lives.

We've been happy to help the most vunerable in our
society. Because that is the right thing to do.

If you resent that or feel that you want to live
differently - that is entirely up to you and your
values, and your conscience and the society you want
to live in.

I shall act according to my conscience.

Cheers.

Foxy,
You made no reference to Costello's book in the last post but I assumed it was taken from his book. That is why I said I disagreed with him on this. I said 'your interpretation' to cover myself in case it was your words.

If you agree with him, what achievements in the last decade? OH, Howard did build a rail line to connect Darwin to Adelaide.

What indicators, either here or world wide, are there that make you optimistic about the future for those that come after us? I mean practical things, dreaming or looking at stars does not count.

Foxy, as I have said in the past, unless you earn in excess of $140,000 pa, you are relying on others to pay for the asylum seekers, as your taxes don't cover your drawings.
So by all means follow your conscience, but only if you can back it up with your cheque book.
As for your achievements, all I can say is a big fat bravo to you and your family as unlike many on this forum I admire achievement, and the 'tall poppy syndrome' doesn't live here in my world. So take a bow.

Dear rehctub,

Thank You for your kind words.

But to my husband and I we're not into
taking bows. We do what we feel we have
to do - and to us that has always been
to be independent, look after our
families, and help those we can. We've
always managed very well.

Dear Banjo,

I think as far as Peter Costello is concerned
the following link provides a good summary
of his achievements:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/06/our-greatest-treasurer/

Fox,

Gosh with all of your name-dropping, 'Peter' and wife, your simpatico relationship and common thinking on life's Big Things (eg your support of illegal immigrants arriving on $50,000 family tickets with Nasty Crim Gang Travel Agents for the Economically Blessed faux 'asylum seekers'), and going on endlessly about your deep respect for Peter's achievements,

(whew)

..it stretches one's credulity to believe that you always held Peter in such deep admiration, as your Life Guru and Kindred Spirit. Y'know Peter being another LNP Federal Treasurer who had to fix Labor's mistakes and all.

Peter Costello's book, penned with father in law Coleman's assistance, was published in 2008 wasn't it?

Still not so sure that Peter Costello and you are in fact on the same plane, but interested to know more.

So that all might understand what was surely a change of heart for you, that is unless you previously supported Peter Costello in the Howard government and after, what was responsible for your great awakening that Peter was beaut?

I have read a few comments and do not want to under mind the resolve on both sides of this debate.
My story is how proud I felt this year of being an Australian,while travelling around Europe.
In every capital city I visited, when people heard my accent they would make comments such as "I wish we had a Prime Minister like yours".Refering to the great work Tony Abbott had done to stem the tide of illegal immigrants into Australia. Tony Abbott made it clear that to enter Australia illegally means you will be deported.
Compare this with what a few irresponsible State Premiers have caused
by their statement that illegals were welcome in their State.
This has allowed many Indonesian based people smugglers to get deposits from Middle East and Sub Continent people staying there who want to go to Australia.
This wicked plan by the Premiers to attract a few Green voters to support them at the next State Election.
I live at the coalface of immigration in the outer western suburbs and to encourage any more law breakers from third world countries is a serious mistake.
Indigenous and white kids in our state schools are being headbutted and attacked by these newly arrived young thugs ,yet when local kids defend themselves and are often expelled.
I do not have to mention here the various crimes that have surfaced in the media by these thugs,but in my estimation increase this figure by a factor of ten and you will get a more accurate number.
Gangs of African and Middle Eastern youths roam the suburbs stealing and assaulting locals, young and old as they walk the streets day or night.
State Police are now powerless as these wrong doers know the Courts will allow them to walk free for anything from armed robbery to rape.

Dear BROCK,

I think they were actually referring to Tony Abbott's trick with the raw onion, his wet dream joke for Warren Truss in Parliament, and his ability to recognise an imitation watch from a free $40K Rolex.