Australian Conservatives', Cory Bernadi, has received information from an ex-Centrelink employee about just one very costly (to Australia) migrant family.

A migrant women contacted Centrelink to complain about a reduction in her Family Tax Benefits (FTB). It transpired that the woman was on a Parenting Payment of $495 a fortnight, her husband was on an Austudy allowance for a similar amount, and the couple’s TEN CHILDREN entitled them to a further $2850 per fortnight through FTB ‘A’ and FTB ‘B’. This IS almost $2,000 per week, not counting any childcare benefits, housing assistance and medical benefits!

How many other families like this are we paying for? It is on the public record that 95% or certain immigrants are still on welfare 5 years after there arrival here.

Australia is a crazy country

Look up in the sky, it is the racist card coming down.

meanwhile pensioners are getting squeezed more and more. That's socialism for you.

Dear ttbn,

How about you providing us with a link to all of this?

Where did you get this information from. We'd all like
to see it as well.

Thanks

Dear Foxy,

I had a quick look and here is the link for you.

http://hotcopper.com.au/threads/from-cory-bernadi.3613221/

Not sure if it is fair dinkum or not. Doubtful Jim Cross is his actual name so we might as well say an un-named source.

What is interesting is the language, especially the use of the word “patriot”. Cory has always been such an easily led fellow and his dose of Trump while he was in the States really seems to have left its mark.

Just what this country needs, another bloody Trump wannabe.

Dear Steele,

Thanks for the link.

I wasn't able to find it.

It reminds me of Neil Mitchell speaking on Q&A,
February 8, 2016 about the cost of refugees and
welfare payments to Australia. He attributed his
numbers to "unnamed sources."

It's not possible of course for anyone to verify
the accuracy of numbers provided by "unnamed sources."
And it is important that we get the facts right.

Of course I imagine that none of this is important
to either Mr Bernardi or some other politicians.
Getting voter support is what they're
after. Still with the mess our current
government is currently in - they just might do better than
any of us ever dreamt they possibly could.

Foxy,

It was from a regular weekly email I receive as a member of Australian Conservatives. Members only, I'm afraid.

So they cost the taxpayer about $2500 wk / 5k fortnightly or 120k annually to import them.
(+ the cost of Austudy courses you may have left out)
10 people have go to work and pay $250 tax a week while struggling to make ends meet for their own family just so this one couple could come here to our country and birth / raise their kids here for free?
I bet she uses the doctor home visits too with all those kids...

All these hard working Aussies taxes taken before the country even sees one sinle cent on benefit.
How exactly do you try to explain that to those Aussies?
Money taken from their families, wives and kids; and freely given away to foreigners?

Dear Foxy,

I did enjoy this remarkably candid quote from his wife who said they have the perfect marriage because they’re “both in love with the same man”. “Cory obviously has this huge belief in himself … If you didn’t love a guy who was so in love with himself you’d have a lot of trouble living with Cory. Life – I don’t think he’d mind me saying this – it’s all about Cory. I am all about Cory, and he is all about Cory, so it makes it easy.”
https://www.themonthly.com.au/cory-bernardi-conservative-warrior-all-about-cory-sally-neighbour-4327

While he is the kind of bloke who it seems would be easy to have a beer with he really is a bit of a tool. The problem is he's obviously prepared to do what ever it takes and to use quite loaded language to garner support. Unfortunately it's of the variety that drives incitement from the less hinged of our citizens.

Dear Steele,

Thanks for that quote from Cory's wife.

It makes sense to me. I've always thought
that the man saw himself as a lone ranger astride
a horse on the great plains of history.

Is the time right for a genuine hard right party
in Australia? I'm not sure if there is real
support out there. Quite a few commentators have
stated that if the disastrous downfall of Tony
Abbott proved anything, it was that many Australians
retain a residual faith in values such as
fairness and equality. While many voters may be
socially conservative, I think they're also worried
by wealth inequality and the rapidly vanishing
Australian "fair go." Cory makes a great deal out of
his individualism. But the price of individualism
is isolation and Cory may just find out how lonely a
party of one can be.

So now Bernardi's wife can't make a joke without a Left goon jumping on it. Mind you, the wife is a bit of a goon herself if she is unaware that there are juvenile types like Steeleredux out there with limited ability just waiting to mouth off.

I am not surprised that Bernardi accepted this comment at face value - it fits in with the perception that refugees are a drain on the public purse. Unlike the other commentators I do have first hand experience with migrants on benefits. My company provided employment assistance to migrants referred to us by Centrelink. During the period we held the contract we managed about 3,000 people from non English Speaking Backgrounds about half would have been refugees. So I would suggest that this should give us a fair sample from which to draw some conclusions. I have no doubt that were there a family with 10 children and a husband on full time study that they would be on the sort of money that Bernardi reports. The problem that I have with the account is that, based on my experience, this is atypical. We encountered not one family that would have fitted the bill. Mu overwhelming experience was that the people we looked after wanted to get off benefits as quickly as possible. They found the process demeaning and dehumanising. They resented that it seemed as if staff assumed that they were lying. Certainly they were no orphans in that - most people on Centrelink benefits have similar views.
Given that of al the clients we managed I found only two who I would regard as trying to rip off the system. That everyone else was keen to get a job and get financial independence as soon as possible I suspect that the mythical centre link employee did something that we can all do from time to time imagine how much money someone would be eligible for and them to make it a bit more dramatic create a scenario that makes it seem as if this family is ripping the system off.

ttbn. K-Mart have a special this week on white bed sheets, I thought you might want to stock up. Could hand them out at the next meeting of the patriots.
Just trying to help you save a dollar.

What utter garbage BAYGON.

My wife was a bit of a bleeding heart until she joined a charity doing what you were doing. She ended up being given the long term unemployed section to handle.

I watched her disillusionment over a few years, as she found just how many bludgers she had to deal with.

She & others in the organisation were threatened many times with violence if they sanctioned any of the bludgers for not complying with requirements for receipt of benefits. Fortunately the police station was just 2 doors away. Her honest assessment after 3 years was about 10% of the long termers were genuine about wanting a job.

She was continually disappointed when the organisation put some they thought genuine through courses, bought them clothes, only to find they stopped turning up at work after a week or two.

If you did not find the same, you are a fool selling yourself a pile of garbage for some private reason.

It also says it all, when SteeleRedux & Foxy revert to a denigrating of the messenger, rather than discuss the actual subject. I'm surprised at you Foxy, but expect nothing else from those like SR.

Dear BAYGON,

Thanks for sharing your experience with us.

Mine has been very similar to yours. I'm not surprised
at what Mr Bernardi has to say. Just look at his
record and stance on things. If BS could float -
he'd be the Admiral of the fleet.

Hassie,

Why are you surprised? That I don't buy BS?
You should know me better by now. I'm surprised
that you do.

@hasbeen
I was quite specific - I dealt with the newly arrived - most for classed at being at risk of being long term unemployed.
I do not doubt your wife's experience but again would not class them as bludgers but rather that the system does a very good job at training people to play the system - this is particularly true for the long term unemployed.
The two instances that I had where people were gaming the system were cases where people had been in the system for over 15 years.
My staff who had clients like those that your wife had found their biggest problem was that the long term unemployed had had so many knock backs that they had mentally given up.
One of the strategies becomes getting on a course, getting some clothes for whilst you are on a course you dont have to go through the farce of listing the employers you have contacted.
Then once they get a job they very quickly discover that they have lost the skills most of us take for granted - a day regulated by the demands of work.
My objection is that we blame the unemployed when we really should be taking a far closer look at the way the system is organized to encourage them to fail.
I agree that there will always be some people who will rort the system but when that figure approaches Pareto's 80:20 ratio then we should recognize that the problem is systemic.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, certain categories of refugees are heavily involved in very major crime, and if one were to extrapolate that a little, I'm positive it wouldn't be too greater reach, to assume these same criminals are milking the Social Welfare system as well! If anyone were dispute this, well there'd be no point continuing the conversation.

You might question whether I could substantiate that claim? When I was still in the job, absolutely. However today of course I couldn't. Perhaps that family member of yours STEELEREDUX who's serving/or did serve, in the AFP most certainly could I'd imagine.

The problem with successive governments they all like to be seen as being munificent in their way they overtly deal with refugee. All at the behest of the United Nations, itself an organisation run very much on socialist, marxist lines. And that's all well and good, but it's about time other Countries did some of the heavy lifting, as well as poor ol Oz, don't you think?

Most Aussies don't mind helping out genuine refugees - But these fraudsters deserve nothing more than gaol and immediate deportation. And if they happen to be found as 'Stateless' by contrivance, or design, in an attempt to foil all deportation measures? Well, that's fine too, with their help we'll simply build a work camp 100kms west of Pine Gap, where they'll stay, until they 'suddenly' or 'mysteriously' find their true and genuine identity documents?

Surely those from the 'Left' couldn't be indignant with such a measure? After all it's the duty of all loyal Australians to protect the integrity of our Social Security system to ensure only those who are legitimately entitled to it, receive it. I'm sure, upon reflection, you'll agree with me on this matter STEELEREDUX.

Baygon's 3,000 out of 200,000 plus every year since John Howard's government lost power (and he lost his seat because of his foolishness) is not 'atypical'? As Hasbeen says, 'what garbage'.

Paul 1405,

A bed wetter like you would have more need of lots of sheets than I do.

The amazing thing is that the left claim to be the compassionate ones. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the way they allow the Indigenous kids to be abused at epidemic proportion. Look at how they cried about the 1200 or so drowned as a result of their policy. They are good at spending Government money and destroying society. As for compassion go and figure.

It seems to me that some posters allow their judgement to be clouded by their dislike of Cory Bernardi as a person. I ask them: when was politics a job for nice people? I've seen many politicians come and go in my time, and there is not one I would like to come any where near me under any circumstances. Politicians are a necessary evil. Those in parties like Liberal, National, Labor and Greens lose any individuality the moment they are elected. They become mouthpieces – 'things' if you like – for the party. For the time being (it remains to be seen how long before Australian Conservative becomes a large party -or not) Bernardi has provided an opportunity for people to vote for policies other than those of the Turnbull-wrecked Coalition. Non-conservatives still have Labor; the extreme Left have the Greens; however, there was nowhere for genuine conservatives to go before Cory Bernardi decided to dump the now small 'l' Coalition because he was fed up with the way the it has been driven by Turnbull and his leftist cohorts. Conservatives have been totally disenfranchised!

Cory Bernardi has the personality of a dead fish – another politician that I wouldn't have anywhere near me. However, he is an instrument that might get me, and many other disenfranchised conservatives, what we want and what we believe in. You cultural Marxists have had it your way for too long. You are responsible for the state Australia is in – self-hating, glorying in difference instead of unity, unwilling to defend your culture, defeatism in the face of bullying elites, blasé about huge debt, apologising for people ripping us off, and downright cowardly. That's the short list.

I cannot do anything about you except to say that you have have something very wrong with you.

A few years back CH 9 exposed a man with two wives living in different
houses with their children and claiming for oth & I think it was
government housing also.
I suspect this would be pretty common.
Re Bernadi, he seems OK to me, read his party's policy and they seem
rather good to me.
It is not a hard right party like the left tries to say.
Certainly on the right of the Liberal party as it is now.
You cannot say it is like the Nazi Party because that was a socialist
party to the left of the communist party.

No, I would give them a go, they might at least cut back on immigration.

Sensible comments, Bazz. I wonder what happened to the polygamist you refer to? Probably still sucking on the public teat for all it's worth, I would think - along with a lot of his mates.

Hi there BAZZ and TTBN...

I agree with everything you've both said on this immigration question that's confronting our country. Concerning the qualities of otherwise of Cory BERNADI I don't know whether we can trust an old Liberal turned feral with all our political hopes and aspirations. I would've thought we need an entirely new Conservative Party altogether; rather than one or two disillusioned former Liberals, trying hard to change their convictions and ideology? Of course I could well be wrong.

I know what you mean, o sung wu, but we sure as hell cannot trust the remaining 'old' Liberals.

Oh I almost forgot what I was going to write;
Just saw Pauline Hansen in the senate wearing a burqa !
What a laugh, the greens etc were absolutely apoplectic.

Anyway back to the thread, if they are reasonably successful they will
have a number of members and their attitude and policies will be less
Cory Bernadi and more general in scope.

Bleeding heart excuses for the bludgers just don't cut the mustard BAYGON. I can't think of a better way of "encouraging" these bludgers to develop a work ethic, than hunger, & a tent in a camping area as their only tax payer supplied welfare.

I doubt they would long be unemployed. Of course quite a few of them are employed a day or 3 a week, all cash in hand of course. Catching these cheats was one area my wife's organisation became quite good at.

She still wants to believe there is good in everyone, but is not quite such a soft touch, after 3 years dealing with the scum.

Dear o sung wu,

From what I can gather the scariest crim my relation had to contend with was a huge redheaded Scotsman who had survived being shot three times by Chopper. His wrists were too large for standard cuffing.

Of the ones he dealt with those he detested the most were the high-fliers ripping off the government with dodgy old folks homes or a certain Barrister who ended up doing 7 for cocaine importation. I don't think these 'gentlemen' would have been frequenting the local Centerlink branch.

Could I ask though how is it that the original letter, supposedly from Cory, spoke of migrants but you have quickly moved the subject to refugees?

I don't have the experience of Baygon, and I wouldn't trust Hasbeen as far as I could throw him because he has the propensity to make things up to suit the occasion, but I taught English for a few years to a Vietnamese refugee who is a qualified doctor. This bloke was quickly doing 60 hours a week including delivering pizzas. He now works in a meat processing plant dealing with very cold environments which trash his hands. He wants to get back to medicine but not until his son finishes highschool. He works his guts out and I feel privileged to be able to call him an Australian and we could do with a lot more like him. I much prefer giving him a shot than those Chinese millionaires we give easy pathways to citizenship because they wave their cash around.

If I had my way we would be dialling back immigration by a third and doubling our refugee intake. I have seen the impact of 457 visa holders and I think we have been conned yet again by big business in this country. The numbers of immigrants are plainly impacting social cohesion and the environment.

I realise this would mean a probable recession because after decimating manufacturing, population growth firing a housing market is the only thing holding this country's nose above the water but I would wear it. Would you?

Disgusting divisive behavior by Hanson in the Senate today. Engaging in a ridiculous stunt of wearing a burka into the chamber. A stupid act that was loudly condemned by all sides of politics. In a stinging attack on the moronic Senator, Attorney-General George Brandis said her stunt was "offensive and ignorant"

No doubt the far right hate committee will be applauding Hanson.

Foxy, SR,

You clearly don't have any knowledge of the subject or any figures of your own, so you adopt the standard left whinge tactics of the ad-hominem.

Firstly Foxy claims that he's talking BS without a smidgeon of evidence showing more than a touch of hypocrisy, then SR dredges up an old article on by a left whinge journo in which she unearths the stunning secret that he has a large ego and is self-promoting. That this is true for every politician ever seems to have eluded her and you.

Finally, having trawled through the ABS stats about a year ago what I saw pretty much agrees with what CB stated. The lesson here is that you should put your money where your mouth is, not your foot.

Paul,

Well off topic, but seeing you have brought it up …. I thought the really ridiculous performance came from Brandis, hamming it up for the cameras. He has become far too precious for politics, and his deepening complexion suggests that he should take that cushy job in London. “... loudly condemned by all sides of politics”? On my TV, it was the senators opposite who did all the applauding; apart from three government senators weakly putting their hands together very briefly. Brandis's side didn't appear to offer him any support at all. They looked more embarrassed for him than they were concerned about Hanson.

You certainly see things differently from most people through your green tinted glasses.

ttbn, other than by the extreme right Hanson stands condemned from all sides. Brandis answered her puerile questions with a firm and unequivocal, NO!
Give the racists attitudes displayed by some, I am sure they loudly applied such stupid grandstanding. I also note the woman's lack of competency, almost incoherent, when attempting to answer questions, a definite indicator of low intelligence on her part.

Hansons stunt was not nearly repulsive than that of peverts wearing religious outfits at Mardi gras. No doubt the likes of Greens and Brandis applaud these pervert. Croc tears!

Gauwd some people show ignorance.
The burqa is NOT an Islamic garment !
It is an Arab garment. Most moslems DO NOT WEAR IT !
Arabs and Afghans wear it.
Got it, understand now ?

However you all take yourself too seriously.
I thought it was hilarious !
When she first walked in they all sat there like stunned mullets.
Then Brandis got up and pontificated no end to complete the joke.
The whole thing was so ironic, it was the best thing that has happened
in parliament this year.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You charged;

“you adopt the standard left whinge tactics of the ad-hominem”

Left whinge? Well the gloves didn't remain off for long did they. Okay then.

I directly answered a question from Foxy about the origin of the figures quoted by one of the trio of resident rightwing nutjobs. I made an observation about his language and when Foxy opinined;

“Of course I imagine that none of this is important to either Mr Bernardi or some other politicians. Getting voter support is what they're after.”

I concurred, supplying a quote from his wife to solidify the point Foxy was making. You have chosen to deem this an attack on him. Your right-whinge sycophantic scramble to find the slightest offense at innoculous comments just so you can engage in some mindless rant about ad-hominem attacks to deflect from any substantive points is purile in the extreme.

Why on earth do you do this? Are your possible arguments so bereft that calling us left whingers is the only possible retort? Grow up mate.

Finally what is this?

“Finally, having trawled through the ABS stats about a year ago what I saw pretty much agrees with what CB stated.”

Absolute garbage my friend. There is nothing in those statistic which would give you any evidence for what good old Cory was spouting. Disagree? Well put up or shut up.

Dear Steele,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/carvalho-why-migrants-may-be-our-greatest-economic-asset/6409042

Paul,

Sorry, but you seem to distressed and incoherent. You imagine "all sides" condemn Hanson. This is not true, as evidenced by the telecast from the Senate. You continue to talk about 'racism', but Hanson's performance was aimed at the Muslim religion, not a particular race of people. The best thing for other Senators to have done was to ignore her; instead, they became emotional and made bigger fools of themselves than she did. The biggest fool was Brandis, and the confected outrage and sanctimony from the Opposition and cross benches was nothing short of absurd.

Steele, you know as well as we all know that only if you have the
access that someone who works for Centrelink would know about how
large a problem it actually is .
Only the pollies can actually get at the size of the problem.
There is a moslem trend of not being exactly lawful. It comes from its
tribal background and practises in their homelands.
We have seen it here in very recent days.
The insurance companies have seen it all with the Lebanese car crashes
and the well known Lebanese stocktakes.

In corrupt countries, the people see no point in obeying the law.

Foxy,

I had a look at your dated reference - a lot has happened in two years. I also had a look at the posts under the article. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for the writer's point of view

ttbn, looking like a hairless Cousin Itt (Addams Family) was amusing, I did laugh, until she took it off then I really laughed. The woman's a joke every time she opens her mouth.

Language is always changing, and the meaning of words change, to apply only the older staid narrow definition of a word, and not accept its broader change of meaning over time is incorrect. The word "racists" is such a case. Where the narrow definition of applying only to race, was true at one time, it's now accepted as applying to a group, in some instances such as Muslims, black people. If you do not accept racists in that context, then at best it's discrimination based on a particular aspect of a group, in this case the Muslim religion

We well recognise Paul as a leftist proponent is supporting political correctness, and the Muslim religion. The Muslim community recognise we have a law making racism a criminal offense. They hide behind this veil of race so that Islam cannot be challenged. However many white Australians have adopted Islam; in Paul's view these white converts are now of the Arab race.

Paul and his ilk no longer defend our Western values

SR,

While I am not personally a fan of a lot of what CB stands for, on this issue I agree with him primarily because the facts do, and your post and Foxy's were exactly a feeble attempt to rubbish his character to justify claiming that everything he said was BS.

Here I have "put up" as to the "contribution" or lack of it that the refugees/economic migrants that labor brought in. Perhaps you would care to "put up".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/only-one-in-20-newly-resettled-refugees-employed-after-six-mont/6773922

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/09/latest-study-of-refugees-settled-in-australia-90-on-welfare-50-never-held-a-job-here-or-home-country.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/a-world-of-long-term-welfare-for-refugees/news-story/eb89247591634a539dd2c71cb0a1cb37

"MORE than 90 per cent of surveyed refugees granted permanent visas under the previous Labor government had failed to find a job within three to six months, forcing the majority to rely on government welfare to survive, a new report has revealed.

Despite 80 per cent claiming to feel “welcomed by Australia”, the social difficulties they faced were immense, according to the first government study to follow the new wave of humanitarian ­migrants.

Almost half reported they had never had a job in their lives, and 15 per cent had never attended school in their birth country.

Almost 40 per cent reported not understanding or speaking English, with only 10 per cent having a university degree and just 6 per cent being qualified for a trade. Only 7.8 per cent had qualifications recognized in Australia"

Dear Shadow Minister,

What nonsense.

You attempted to elevate an email supposedly sent by Cory Bernardi to an anonymous forum member on the linked site quoting figures from a supposedly ex-Centrelink employee who we do not know the identity of and therefore can not be challenged in any way. We had no indication that Cory make any attempts to verify the origin of the email nor its supposed case study.

You then claim it must be true because you “trawled through the ABS stats about a year ago what I saw pretty much agrees with what CB stated”.

When I asked for that data you instead gave me news links including one for Michael Smith News of all places.

Let's deal with the news.com article.

“The study of more than 8500 humanitarian entrants revealed that only 31 per cent of humanitarian refugees were considered "employed" after five years. The remainder were unemployed, retired, studying full time, engaged in caring duties, doing voluntary work or trying to start a business from which they had yet to receive income. More than 60 per cent of those people without jobs had a poor command of English.”
So the figures of the 'not-employed' included the stay at home mums (possibly higher because of cultural factors), students, retired people and those who had yet to derive money from a business they had started.
So this gives us a non-participation rate of 69%. The national rate of non-participation rate stands at 35% but this does not include retired people.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

Do I think the government could do more to address the differences? Sure. But I do not think the figures are that out of whack given the circumstances and cultures these unfortunate people are rescued from. The 10 and 20 year statistics will give a better picture.

Now where on earth are your ABS figures?

Fr Joe, unless you have done some kind of forum survey you should have begun your personal observation of me with the word "I", rather than "We", Although the word "We" gives you a feeling of inclusion within the group, as opposed to the implied rejection by the use of the singular word "I".

"(Paul1405) supporting political correctness, and the Muslim religion." Not so, I am an atheists and support no religion, Islam is as ridiculous and as dangerous as your Christianity.

"Paul and his ilk no longer defend our Western values". Just enlighten me as to what they are, and I'll let you know if I support them, and are willing to defend them. I hope they are not being confused with your own minuscule minority Christian fundo values, like opposing gay marriage in Australia.

p/s What is "political correctness" never could understand that bit of jargon used by the rabid right.

Paul please identify what are the human races we find in our World? Is Islam one of them? You seem to think so! Identifying Islam as a race is political correctness, which you espouse. Political correctness is not a Western value, nor is it supported by the English language.

How many of those unemployed immigrants are identified by their language, race or religion?

Dear Steele,

Here is another link that shows how complex the
situation really is when trying to make judgements
with figures dealing with welfare and unemployment:

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395

The federal governments have repeatedly failed to perform proper due diligence where they have put the ideology of 'diversity' ahead of what is good for Australians.

Federal governments have catered to small and noisy lobbyists and activists, allowing the politically correct idealism of 'diversity' to rule, to dictate, displacing the aims of immigration policy which should be giving first priority to what is good for the Australian people.

The goals of immigration should be renegotiated with the public and a mandate for very clear and precise aims and outcomes where immigration may be one solution, but by itself is never the aim. Immigration is NOT the aim, but it hs become that, a sacred cow too. Immigration is only one possible solution, but for what has to be delineated. It isn't the role of Australia to be reaching across the globe to solve population problems of other countries.

There has to be measurement, preferably numerical, to see it the claimed outcomes are consistently being met. Whereas at present there are deep public concerns that immigration serves the needs of immigrants and the NGOs and others who make a living out of that, and is a Ponzi scheme for a series of federal governments that failed to plan and relied on 'growth is good'.

Of course immigration authorities should never be preferencing poorer prospects ahead of more suitable candidates. The latter, superior candidates, are law-abiding, healthy and vital people who are proficient in English, have proved skills that are in demand and will be able to readily assume a place in society. Due diligence must value and ensure discrimination*, distinction, a sieve, that allows better applicants to present and have their claims considered seriously. To establish the relative merits of claimants, putting those with higher merit first, always.

discrimination*, another word that has been co-opted, appropriated, by the cultural Marxists to reverse its original meaning, converting what is a very desirable decision/judgement skill to a negative.

Migrants arriving in Australia after the Second
World War were expected by the Australian Government
to settle permanently and to assimilate. This explicit
policy was highlighted by the creation, in 1947, of
the Assimilation Branch of the Australian Department
of Immigration. Assimilation meant blending into the
Australian monoculture, 'with everyone living in the
same way...and sharing the same aspirations.'

This official attitude was supported by many "old"
Australians understandable determination to retain their
traditional Australian identity, even though such
identity was difficult to define. Richard Boyer,
the Chairman of the ABC complained in 1956 that, when
invited by a group of new Australians to tell them what
the Australian way of life was he found putting it into
words was one of the hardest tasks that he had ever
faced.

Well that was then. Now times have moved on. We have
learned from experience that of course some measure of
assimilation is inevitable for any ethnic community.
Even seemingly airtight and isolated groups such as
Hasidic Jews cannot totally escape a slight touch of
assimilation. Furthermore, assimilation is a two-way
process. As an immigrant absorbs the culture of his host
country, he is also giving off and surrendering some of
his own imported heritage. As a result a migrant
living in Australia for a long time is likely to gradually
create a new identity, although he may not be aware of it.

What the former immigrant still believes to be say his
Greek identity may well be regarded as totally Australian
by the contemporary residents of Greece.

Today attempts are made to preserve migrant cultures in
Australia through the broad concept of community
education. This was based on the observation that already
our nation has been enriched by the artistic, intellectual,
and other attributes of migrant cultures. We gained what was
lost to other nations and hopefully this will continue to
be the case.

Foxy,

You are off on political idealism and its constructs of 'Assimilation' with a big A and multiculturalism with a big M. Quite irrelevant, troublemaking and the stuff of zealots. Or in Oz the culturally cringing leftists, mainly circa 1960s and still bothering everyone else. The tiresome Phillip Adams and ors.

Two questions for you,

- What about the problems where children growing up in Australia don't assimilate Australian values?

- You do want children to be able to integrate, don't you?

assimilate

a : to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population or group
… 'the belief that tolerant hosts would be able to assimilate immigrants of whatever creed or colour'. — Brian Holmes

SR,

You seem to be a little muddle headed, as I never referred to the letter at all, and I find that specific unusual cases are irrelevant in defining a general problem.

As for the stats, I still look forward to your contribution as you ignore your own advice to put up or shut up. I find it interesting that of all the links, you focus on the one concerning refugees from prior to the Krudd/Juliar disaster. That most of those in the country greater than 5 years had been in the country as much as 10yrs, and for 83% to still be receiving welfare is a serious financial drain.

As for the recent flood of economic migrants, the unemployment rate is closer to 90% and the stats I have provided have not been disputed. If you want ABS stats, you can do the hard yards, or at least provide anything that makes your case.

Paul,

Who does all this word-changing? The changes don't seem to have reached any dictionaries. 'Racism' can never be applied to discrimination against a religion. Call it discrimination by all means, but it ain't racism.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Tut, tut.

“Finally, having trawled through the ABS stats about a year ago what I saw pretty much agrees with what CB stated.”

It wasn't Cory that was stating the supposed facts of the case but rather the author of the email sent to Cory. So I'm confused, are you agreeing with the author then?

I linked to ABS data in my response so the url is there for you to use. Let's see anything you might have from your extensive trawling.

Looking at the earlier policies of the
governments of this country is
not any sort of political activism or zealotry.
It's simply trying to understand where we are.

Until the 1970s, assimilation and the preservation
of "White Australia" continued as the Australian
Government's official policies. Migrants of every
ethnic origin were expected to assimilate promptly into
a monocultural mold of Australian identity, based on
the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic culture.

The ideal migrant was the one who assimilated easily, one
who became more similar to the host population as a result
of social interaction and through the shedding of
attributes of their culture.

However as with everything things began to change.

The contributing factors included generally changing social
attitudes, war service, travel, foreign students in
Australia. The revised immigration policies allowed new
people to come and settle in Australia. People from a wide
range of nationalities, races, religions and cultures. By the
end of the 1970s Australia had acquired an unmistakably
mew heterogeneous face.

The official Government policies reflected these social
developments. They moved from "assimilation" to "integration,"
and then, to "multiculturalism."

The Galbally Report (1978) was the turning point, when it
urged the Australian Government 'to encourage the retention
of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and
promote intercultural understanding'. Since then, the
Australian Government has re-defined "multiculturalism"
several times. One simplified definition states:
"Multiculturalism involves living together with an
awareness of cultural diversity."

At present Australia is one of the most ethnically diverse
societies in the world. However, the concept of
multiculturalism continues to have different meanings for
different people. Hidden anti-migrant prejudices many not
be voiced in public until they are highlighted by some
well publicized event, such as Pauline Hanson's 1996
maiden speech in Parliament. Some Australians still
believe that "a unique Australian society and identity
emerged with Federation and this identity should be the
basis of immigrant assimilation'

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

When discussing migrants, however, especially
non-British migrants, people are sometimes tempted
to lump all newcomers together and treat them as
one homogeneous species.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Australian
immigrants vary a great deal in their ethnic
backgrounds, religions, and educational levels. Their
current social and educational needs are not homogeneous,
either. People have settled in Australia for various
reasons, economic, change of lifestyle, adventure,
refugees, family reunions.

The early months after arrival in a new country call for the
greatest adjustment, not only for the migrant, but also for
the local people who inter-act with the migrant. Since
Culotta's humorous exposure of this problem, the literature
on this topic has been growing rapidly and undoubtedly
will continue to do so.

The most confusing quote of the week comes from Muddled Up Malcolm Roberts a One Nation pommy nutter.

“And in Australia with our set of values people are seeing this (the burqa) as an affront to women, homosexuals, an affront to Australian values.The Islamic people throw homosexuals off the roofs of buildings,” I presume only if they are dressed in burqa's.

I have come to the conclusion that the Lovely Pauline should wear a burqa permanently, a defiant improvement.

Dear Paul,

The Pauline Hanson burqa stunt disproved her point:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/pauline-hanson-burqa-stunt-disproved-her-point/8819162

For Hanson it was the star attraction in a stunt more closely
resembling a year 12 much-up day prank.

And that's being generous because -
I doubt if Ms Hanson ever made it to year 12.

Foxy,

Sneering at Hanson's presumed lack of formal education is not a good tactic, given the idiocy that comes from 'highly educated' university graduates these days. Very disappointing.

The immigration of muslims from the middle East has given thousands of people jobs in the security industry.

Dear ttbn,

I'm not sneering at Ms Hanson's lack of education but
at her ignorance and actions. There is a difference.

Dear runner,

And some of this country's Christian religious
leaders have given the legal professions and
courts such massive opportunities to get rich
through all the cases of child abuse currently
under investigation. And think of all the
Royal Commissions that still lie ahead.
An on-going saga for many years to come.

Pauline Hanson, dropped out of school when she was 15 and also left her home to work in a variety of unskilled clerical and service jobs. In 1978, she started a plumbing and roofing business and finally opened a fish and chips shop in Ipswich in 1987. Nothing wrong with that.

Hi Foxy, some of the most reasoned people I have met, have had minimal formal education, so have some of the most ignorant. One of my dearest friends is studying for the ministry, working tirelessly for his people. Unselfishly administering to them when the need arises, which is often. He has a much greater ability to understand people than many of the far better educated do. Still, he is having difficulty with the formal side of his church study, one weekend per month in Auckland's theological college, and that worries him. He does well for a bloke who can't afford shoe laces, then he tells me, he don't need shoe laces. Dresses from the town's hooka hooka shop.

Dear Paul,

Of course there are some great people who have not
had a higher education. We all have many examples
in our lives. My criticisms were of Pauline
Hanson. Not of her lack of education as such, but of
her actions.

You can get away with ignorance as long as you remain
mute. Unfortunately she doesn't.
What she says is frequently reprehensible.

She causes
hurt to people by her repetitive and irrational attacks
on everything she perceives from her extremely limited
frame of understanding to be not representative of the
"real Australians." Her nostalgically imagined tribe.
She has a habit of branding other people who she has
not met with pejorative labels.

The following link explains further - the point
that I was trying to make:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-07/bradley-why-simply-calling-hanson-racist-doesnt-help/7575596

Hi Foxy, totally agree, politically about the only thing Hanson and I have in common is her first name is the female equivalent of Paul.

After my last post I though I would give my friend in NZ a call, for a catch up. He's been down south in the Hawks Bay region, following a call from a family who wanted him to preside at a Tangi, no sweat leaving home at 11pm, flat tyre in the middle of the night, friendly motorists stopped and helped out, stopped off at our brothers in the morning for a kai (feed) and a tyre fix, picked it up on the way back. The only real money he needs is for petrol and phone, which that trip would cost about $150. When they can the people help out with a koha (gift), but its not something he looks for

Foxy,

So, why did you refer to her probable failure to reach Year 12 if you were really having a go at her “ignorance and actions”?

I am amazed, but gratified by Paul's comments.

While I'm a good deal older than Pauline Hanson, I also left school at 15. There was nothing unusual at the time; few people went on to tertiary education because its wasn't necessary, unless you wanted to go into the professions like medicine. Accounting didn't require a degree ( I studied it by correspondence while I worked). Most of the jobs (except for medicine, engineering etc did not require tertiary education) and much better teachers than we have now were turned out by Teachers' Colleges. Year 11, or 'leaving' (because that's when you left school) was good enough for most people and there was the equivalent of Year 12 – called Matriculation – for those who wanted to go further. I can recall only 3 of my peers who went to university.

When it comes to 'ignorance' and 'actions', formal education has nothing to do with it.

Come to think of it, it is only your opinion that she is 'ignorant' 'irrational' or 'reprehensible'. I not saying that there are not many others who agree with you on Hanson, but many others do not, and in a democracy where she is duly elected, she has the right to say and do as she pleases in the interests of those she represents – and Australia as a whole if she thinks she needs to.

And of course, the ABC reference you give agrees with your thoughts because the ABC is a the biggest Hanson-hater in the land.

I'm not a huge Hanson fan myself, and I think that her stunt was silly – even if only for the reason that she has now drawn even more bad feelings onto herself. But, I'm glad she did it because it shows we still have some democracy in this country and, SHE IS ENTITLED TO DO WHAT SHE DID.

The biggest fool, in my opinion, was George Brandis.

Dear Paul,

Your friend sounds incredible.

Dear ttbn,

I've already explained in my post to Paul
what the point was that I was making
regarding Pauline Hanson. Also the link
I cited helped towards that end as well.
She has always had visible difficulty with
her debating skills. She comes across as not
very bright, perpetually angry and confused. A
person who struggles to articulate how she
feels about any issue beyond saying "I don't
like it." It is also unclear to me what the
difference is between people calling her a
racist and her habit of branding other
people who she hasn't met with pejorative labels.

I just wish that one of her team would point out
her mistakes - which do make her look rather
stupid. Like the time she called Islam a country.
But she's done worse on a variety of issues.

Whether someone utters through intellect or through ignorance....is what they are saying true?
That's all that matters....Whether the messenger is wearing sack cloth or silk is of no importance to the message.

I personally know of people who abuse the welfare system, and we're not talking peanuts, and the system doesn't want to know.
Makes me want to go o/seas, invest my money in South America, come back and apply for a pension while I operate a women's hairdressing shop locally under someone elses name and I cream a little cashamano off the top while I go on cruise holidays.
Am I jealous...am I angry? ...damn right it's my taxes they're going on holidays on
Welfare Bounty hunters is what Australia needs....and jail terms as a consequence

SR,

I did not address the first reference to the email that CB received. However, as I said previously I don't believe that outliers prove anything. From reading commentary from a Centrelink employee, it is entirely possible that this is a true example. My comment is so what! I don't advocate punishing the children for their parents' lack of control over their fertility.

I have a friend who daughter in law loves children and is pregnant with their 11th. While the husband is reasonably well paid, the taxpayer still picks up a large portion of the tab, and while I don't begrudge it, I am awfully glad to have only 2.

However, addressing the larger issue of the cost of supporting asylum seekers, I have no problem adding to the selection criteria for refugees the requirement that they are capable of integrating into Aus society. For example, money would be well spent converting the qualifications of doctors, nurses, lawyers and engineers and enabling them to work rather than some of the violent thugs that are terrorising Melbourne, and those that remain on welfare for extended periods entrenching a cycle of poverty and resentment. A 5 yr period before gaining citizenship where the criminal element can be deported would help as well.

Foxy,

PH is inarticulate and has at best a feeble grasp of policy which probably puts in the same basket with the greens. Again, similar to the greens PH is appealing to her voters on an emotional level, not a logical or intellectual level, and the reaction of the greens, Labor and the Coalition is more likely to firm her support. Her stunt to wear a Burqa to Parliament, as Larissa Waters breastfeeding stunt, was to get attention, which she did in spades.

However, I find their rush to defend the pinnacle of misogyny in the full Burqa is misplaced. To quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Stanford:

"Pauline Hanson can and should be reprimanded for her unparliamentary behaviour. She did not need the fancy dress to make the point she wants to make, which is that burkas ought to be banned for security reasons. But for me, the issue is not security alone. It is the equality of women. Expecting half of humanity to go around covered in black sacks is just evil sexism. We should no more want to see it imported into Australia than we should want to see wife-beating legalised."

When it all boils down, Pauline Hanson is highly unlikely to give a stuff about what her detractors think of her or her policies. She has her supporters -growing numbers - and we had better get used to her. The real clowns at the moment are in government and opposition.

Dear ttbn,

Pauline Hanson should not have been allowed into
Parliament wearing the burqa. And yet she
unfortunately was. Which disproved the point that
she was trying to make. She did it simply as a
stunt. The woman is an opportunist - she will use
whatever is at hand. But be that as it may - she
is no longer just a private person airing her
opinion. She is a Senator and must take responsibility
for her actions. If she is so concerned about the
nation's security - why is she behaving in a manner
that is so divisive. We need to have the support
and co-operation of the Muslim Communities here in
this country to fight against terrorism. Her actions
only discourage their support. Not a wise move at all.
And works against us. If she doesn't have the
intelligence to realise the harm that she's doing -
Security guards in Parliament should have stopped her.
They carry some of the blame.

Double standards abound.
Where was the outrage in 1992 when a group of gays wore pink nuns habits into the NT parliament to protest gay rights? Did it even get a mention in mainstream news?
And for Penny Wong to stand up in the House and condemn Pauline for mocking religious beliefs when she totally supports the gay Mardi Gras that does exactly that, in the most obscene way possible, is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

Regarding employment figures for refugees, a few years ago the government did a study called " Settlement Outcomes for New Arrivals". There are copies on line but it's a huge document, over 100 pages so takes a bit of reading.
Here is a very brief comment in an article relating to those figures.

"Using the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, the Department’s research outlines the position of the three key groups of migrants five years after settlement: Skilled, Family and Humanitarian.

In keeping with the findings of previous research, it is absolutely clear that refugees do badly, even after all that time: there is an alarmingly high rate of welfare dependence and a low uptake of employment. The employment rate of those from Afghanistan looks like an unemployment rate: 9 per cent of humanitarian entrants from Afghanistan, five years after settlement, have jobs and 93.7 per cent of the households receive Centrelink payments.

Those from Iraq seem to do little better, with 11.8 per cent employed and 93.2 per cent of households in receipt of Centrelink payments. Interestingly, the groups that seem to do the best are from Other Central and West Africa and from Sierra Leone. Ethiopa is not too bad."

Big Nana,

Penny Wong may support whatever she likes in private,
however as a Senator she does not get dressed up in
Parliament and perform stunts as Ms Hanson did.
Neither do any of the other Senators. As Senator
Hinch pointed out what if they all came dressed as
circus clowns or played dress-ups in the Senate.
Would that be allowed? I doubt if the Security Guards
would allow it. There is such a thing as appropriate
behaviour that our Parliamentarians are supposed to
follow. Would a Senator who was blind-drunk still be
allowed into the Chambers? Perhaps in Queensland he
might be allowed in, but certainly not in Canberra.

cont'd ...

BTW:

Senator Wong has never made fun of other religions
or has been vocal against any ethnic group.
And she has kept her private life private. So to
accuse the Senator of wrong-doing because of her
sexual orientation is narrow-minded in the extreme.

Here is Penny Wong and ors in action,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-02/parliament-burka-rules-introduced/5786132

Obviously a burka is OK in Parliament and anyone can wear it, but not Hanson.

What went wrong with, 'No-one should be telling a woman what to wear'?

I was told to remove my hat (a small beret) in the
gallery of Parliament House in Canberra.
Because - hats were not allowed apparently except
for religious reasons. And Ms Hanson was not wearing
the burqa for "religious reasons," therefore it
also should not have been allowed. They do have rules
not only for the public, but also for Members of
Parliament. Those rules need to be enforced.

leoj, do you actually read your own links, from that 3 year old story the only reference to Penny Wong is; "Labor senator Penny Wong asked why senators had not been consulted," Gee that really puts her in the firing line.

Shadow before criticizing the contribution to the Australian Parliament being made by Green Senators, you should take a look at some of the inanimate objects masquerading as Coalition members, their contribution is nil. Hanson is also one of the slackest when it comes to involvement in parliamentary business.

Pauline missed the opportunity to say that she was not going to be lectured to by a white middle aged male. He was sickening and the applause worse. Of course leftist hypocrites don't mind emasculated white males when they parrot their dogmas no matter how hypocritical.

Dear runner,

What about Christian white males who make all sorts
of accusations against others while ignoring their
own defects. "Judge not..." and all that.

Foxy, Penny Wong marched in the Gay Mardi Gras representing gay politicians. This parade includes extremely offensive, sexual degradation of nuns. Something Hansen didn't do, her behaviour wasn't degrading at all.
For Wong to then stand up and condemn anyone mocking a persons religious beliefs is beyond comprehension. As is your attempt to defend her actions.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mardi-gras-penny-wong-joins-the-parade-20140228-33qvr.html

Big Nana,

What utter nonsense.

Penny Wong did not personally put on the garb of a
nun or any other costume to denegrate any group.
As she explained (in the link YOU gave) she marched
alongside Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese, and she
was there to make a public stand for young people who
might be struggling with their sexuality. This was her
first Mardi Gras (2014).

"I often think about how important it is that
political leaders and ALL of us at Mardi Gras do stand
up and say - 'We're proud of who we are,"
"Because we're also saying to them 'we're proud of who
you are."

She found it quite moving and thought that the
celebration and affirmation was palpable.

Nuns were not HER target (if there were ANY in that march).
A variety of politicians attend Sydney's Mardi Gras -
simply to show their support that Gays are a part of
our communities - not to denigrate anyone. Therein lies
the difference.

Malcolm Turnbull has attended the Mardi Gras for several
years. Last year he was the first sitting Prime Minister
to do so (along with his wife Lucy). Bill Shorten has
also attended. Should your accusations be levelled at them
as well?

Dear oh Dear.

'Dear runner,

What about Christian white males who make all sorts
of accusations against others while ignoring their
own defects. "Judge not..." and all that.'

you mean like you have just done Foxy. True to form.

Dear runner,

Do you know where the wicked go after death?

They go to hell, we're told.

And what is hell?

Sister told us it's a pit full of fire.

She'd then ask us - And would you like to fall
into that pit and burn forever?

No Sister, we'd reply.

Then what must you do to avoid it? she'd ask.

Our replies were always the same.

We must keep in good health and not die.

(taken from Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre.')

Stay healthy runner.

Probably not place I would joke about Foxy but I appreciate your well wishes.

Dear runner,

More Good Wishes for you:

"How many Holy words you read or speak,
What good will they do you if you do
not act upon them?"
(Buddha).

Foxy,

Do you have knowledge of "support and cooperation" from the Muslim community, or are you just slavishly repeated what robotic George Brandis said?

PS, Foxy,

You say Hanson should not have been allowed in wearing Muslim clothing. I take it that you would say the same thing about a real Muslim dressed similarly? Also, as the this mode of dress is NOT BANNED, and will not be banned according to Brandis, why should Hanson not have been allowed in wearing it?

How do they contribute?
They change the voting demographic to be more in line with the passing of anti-australian progressive socialist agendas.
It's very 'liberal' so they say...

Now the public is presented with the hens* fight club, the womens movements' contribution to the federal Senate, the two Hansons, Sarah 'Patrol Boat' Hanson-hyphenated and 'Redhead'(by nick and by behaviour) Pauline, facing off, with the arguably more foolish of the two, namely 'Patrol Boat', frothing up something truely dreadful to shock her presumed bovine audience into gasps of self-righteous (and fearful) indignation,

"'The next attack in Australia will be on your head': Greens attack Pauline Hanson"

The 'Progressive' elements of the Parliament and the leftist media could be seen as placing Pauline Hanson on the pyre of political correctness. With those 'Progressives' as the apologists, the 'White Knights' for Islam, who have now declared the hateful burka to be a 'religious garment', implying sacred and the 'false' wearing of it to be 'sacrilegious', heresy against Islam' and tantamount to a hate crime that might presumably be pursued by 'their' Human Rights Commission.

Brandis was ill-advised to show any reaction to Pauline Hanson's stunt. It was just one of many silly stunts seen in and outside the Parliament. That Brandis' reaction was so theatrical in itself, while so cringingly politically correct, is proof that the government has lost its way and is feeling a need to genuflect every which way.

Will there ever be another Bill Leak to draw this daily charade?

*hens, with thanks to Swedish radical feminism
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html

Dear ttbn,

I've already explained as to why Ms Hanson should
not have been allowed into the Chambers wearing
the burqa. Read my previous posts. She is not a
Muslim, and it was a stunt. Her intent was not
in keeping with the position that she has been
privileged to be given. She should respect both
her position and the Parliament of which she is
now a part. She could have dressed as a
clown, the elephant man, the Queen of England,
or the grim-reaper, - it would have
been just as inappropriate. The Senate is not a
circus and senators do not play dress-ups.
As I stated earlier - when I was visiting Parliament
House in Canberra during winter one year, I was asked
to remove my hat (beret) in the visitor's gallery.
Hats were not allowed - except for religious reasons.
And the security guard stood over me until I took
my beret off. Those were the rules. The same should
have applied to Ms Hanson.

Here is a former top muslim leader who agrees with Pauline.

Read his comments below, with an ABC interviewer no less.

The ABC helps Islamists. A presenter interviews a former top Muslim leader who agrees with Pauline Hanson that the burqa should be banned. But that comment is left out of subsequent ABC roundups of opinion, which have Muslims criticising Hanson. The ABC also hosts a "debate" defending the burqa and publishes a hardliner savaging Hanson as a racist.

Yes, it was an ABC presenter who interviewed a former top Muslim leader and got an unexpected response:

On Friday, Haset Sali, a Muslim lawyer and businessman, was interviewed on ABC Sunshine Coast local radio in Queensland.

Mr Sali, described by ABC Sunshine Coast as a “prominent Australian Muslim”, told presenter Jon Coghill in an interview that he supported Senator Hanson’s push to ban the burka.

A former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and one of its founders, Mr Sali told the ABC that the Koran did not require women to cover their faces.

“I don’t often applaud Pauline Hanson — whether it’s a stunt or an initiative to highlight something that’s unnecessary baggage that has been dumped in with Islam — (but) it’s about time the myth of the burka being Islamic dress was blown out of the water,” he told the ABC.

“The sooner Muslim women get rid of this hideous garb the better.”

Sali also told The Australian the burqa was not a "religious garment", as Attorney General George Brandis had falsely and dangerously claimed:

“The burka is a Bedouin hangover that has been blamed on Islam,” he said. “The Koran makes it very clear (in chapter 24, verses 30-31) that there is no need for anyone to wear a burka if they are to be a good Muslim.

“They are only required to dress modestly and women are required to cover their breasts in public. It has got nothing to do with Islam.

end quote.

One would think this bloke knows his stuff.

No Foxy,
Pauline Hanson's ONLY obligation is towards the people who put her in the senate.
I'm one of them, and I support her move, as do plenty of other Aussies unless of course you support REAL EQUALITY and are ok with legalising balaclava's.
I couldn't give two hoots whether shes actually Muslim or not.
She owes absolutely NOTHING to those people that disagree with her, to you or anyone else, people who would not be satisfied with anything less than burning her alive at the stake.
They are the real intolerant bigots in my opinion, and Aussies put Pauline where she is right now to do EXACTLY that which she has done.
Most politicians south of the QLD border are going to be a cuckold apologists for Muslims (and minorities), if they don't they wont get elected in your overrun multicultural progressive electorates.
The cancers well advanced you morons.

Foxy,
If, as Mr Sali stated the burqa is not a religious garment or requirement, then why do some women wear it?

The only reasonable explanation is that some muslim women try to impress other muslim women that they are more pious. These women should be mocked on the street for their claims. In fact other muslims should be the ones mocking them and we should have no hesitation in banning the dress on security grounds.

If the husbands of the women, that wear the burqa, are making the women wear it, that is all the more reason we should ban it.

Hi Foxy,

Damn silly that you were required to remove your beret, particularly as the there is no ban on the burqa! Surely you have something to say about this? Boofhead Brandis won't ban the burqua, but he has already banned the beret. You should be very angry about this. You do not have the same rights as a Muslim woman wearing a tent.

Had there been a Muslim sitting next to you, she/he (who knows who is hiding) would have been ignored, but you would still have to remove your beret.

Forget PH, Foxy, you should be hopping mad about this sort of discrimination.

Dear ttbn,

Actually I was rather pissed off and very embarrassed
as well. I was wearing the beret at the time not
only because I was cold, being winter, but because
I had also lost a lot of my hair due to cancer.
I used to covered my head with berets as a result. But I had
to obey the rules and my husband told me that I looked
fine (I had a short pixie cut - but I was still very
self-conscious about it). But that was a long time
ago - and I got over it. I've been cancer free for
over a decade now and besides - I wasn't going to fight the
security guard over a simple beret.

Dear Foxy,

This story of a nun not being allowed to wear the habit in class in Nebraska is rather topical I thought.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/catholic-nun-banned-from-wearing-habit-in-classroom-due-to-nebraska-state-law/

The ban came from pressure by the KKK in 1918. it seems intolerance and banning religious garb often walk hand in hand.

Dear Steele,

Don't get me started on nuns.

I watched the film, "Philomena" with Judy Dench on
Saturday evening. A very moving film - but the cruelty
of those "Sisters of Mercy" - who were anything but
merciful - reminded me of my own growing up.

The Church has a lot to answer.

Anyway, Thanks for the link.

"The Church has a lot to answer"

Many would agree with that but add the State.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/uk-child-deportations-of-50s-most-catastrophic-child-abuse-in-memory

Former ABC chairman David Hill urges inquiry to 'name villains' of child migrant abuse in Australia

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/27/child-abuse-survivor-inquiry-name-villains-children-australia

Foxy,

The requirement in Islam is for women to be "modest" not to wear the burqa. This garment is more closely associated with religious extremism as the swastika is associated with nationalist extremism, and I don't believe either should be tolerated.

Prior to the 70's the burqa was foreign to 99% of Muslims, and In Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc Burqas were very seldom seen. The burqa is almost exclusively worn in Saudi Arabia and its satellite states where the extremist Wahabism form of Islam is practised and is associated with women being treated as chattels, honour killings, child brides, female genital mutilation etc.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Please don't misunderstand me.

Pauline Hanson's burqa stunt gave her the cheap
publicity she was seeking. It gave One Nation a
major free kick as the Queensland State Election
approaches. I was perturbed by her prank because I
found her argument of security reasons to be
wrong.

However I am not defending the burqa by
any means and I apologise if that is the impression
I have given.

Calls for a burqa should be on the
grounds of equality and assimilation, not
national security.

Countries such as France,
Belgium and the Netherlands did not ban the burqa and
niqab because of the threat of terror but because
full face veils are dehumanising and obstruct social
cohesion - security concerns were a secondary matter.

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the
burqa ban on those very same grounds.

What Pauline Hanson did was not only self-serving. She
had the wrong argument.

cont'd ...

Sorry for my omission of the word "ban."

The sentence should read -

"Calls for a burqa ban should be on the grounds
of equality and assimilation, not national security."

Again, these are the burka politics, starring Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane and others,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-02/parliament-burka-rules-introduced/5786132

The public are exasperated with that. It reminds parents of the kids in school (and their idiotic parents) who stretch rules on uniforms and waste the School Council's time on their childish oppositional defiance.

There are places where all face covering that is not required by workplace health and safety should be removed. Examples could be, picking up children from care and school, in public places generally and definitely in Parliament House. Where necessary that could apply to head covering, eg., hoodies.

Foxy,

While security might be a secondary issue, it is an issue. In the last months of ISIS rule in Mosul ISIS banned women going out in public wearing the burqa because resistance fighters were using it to provide cover to knock off ISIS fighters.

I'm not looking for a total ban, just from certain public places where face coverings pose a threat.

//I'm not looking for a total ban, just from certain public places where face coverings pose a threat.//

And whilst driving, I reckon they'd probably impede your vision.

I can't even walk into a service station in winter wearing a hoodie to keep my damn neck and ears warm without being considered a criminal.
Stuff them and their sniffling little minority noses out of joint.
When I'm allowed to wear a balaclava into the petrol station to pay for my fuel then they should be allowed to wear their burka too, but not before.
Since when are their rights more important than mine?

... Seriously, what ever happened to one law for everyone??
This is total bs...

Armchair Critic,

I'd say that 98% of the angst is coming from people with some secondary gain, bureaucrats and NGOs with a finger in the multicultural/victimhood pie, the virtue signalling commentariat and politicians competing for votes in marginal seats.

SSM is similar.

I posted a link earlier where that is obvious.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Ok let's get serious now.

How much of a threat is the burqa in Australia?

How many burqa's do you see around town where you
live?

I frankly don't see any. Head scarves - yes. I see
some Muslim women with head scarves. But then I also
see Greek grand-mothers and other women wearing
head-scarves as well. But the full-on burqa is
really rare in this country.

So why the fuss? Is it the politicians and the media
who are manipulating us as leoj suggests?

Think about it.

Of course, I would agree with the ban - if it really
was a serious security risk. But at present I don't
believe that it is. How many burqa's have we ever
seen in Parliament? Just this one recently as a
publicity stunt - right?

Ban the burqa by all means as a sign of oppression -
but not as a security risk. That's nonsense.

Foxy,
Banning burqas would be an unwarranted restriction on people's freedom to wear what they want. And if you're concerned about signs of oppression, a ban would be deeply counterproductive; many Muslim women who would otherwise see the burqa as a sign of oppression would instead see the ban as a sign of oppression and would react against it accordingly.

Dear Aidan,

When and if they did that, Australia can
re-examine the issue. However, most of
the women I know do not wear a burqa.
They find it too restrictive and uncomfortable.
They also like to inter-act with people.
They find that full face veils obstruct
social cohesion.

Personally I'm of the opinion that we cannot
accept to have in our country women who are
prisoners behind netting, cut off from all
social life, deprived of identity.

The burqa to me is not a sign of religion.
It is a sign of subservience. I cannot turn
a blind eye to the plight of women living
under Islam. This is Australia, and the
burqa should be banned. There are other
choices for Muslim women to wear - beautiful
choices and still modest ones. In our country
the burqa should not be one of them.

Foxy,

Perfect timing:

"Burqa-wearing woman armed with a knife 'robs a Melbourne Subway sandwich shop and flees the scene with a bag stuffed with cash'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814426/Knife-wielding-woman-wearing-burqa-robs-Melbourne-Subway.html#ixzz4qYLkBwWN

Shadow Minister

its Pauline's fault. She put the idea in the thiefs head

Dont think there is much intention or expectation that they will contribute anything useful.

I reckon they've beens sent here to turn it into rubble and start an internal war, and kill most of us off.

When thats comlete, the people who sent them here will send another lot in to round them up and put them through a meat grinder.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Let me get this straight -

You're telling me that a knife-wielding burqa-clad
woman robbed a Subway Sandwich shop in the Eastern
Suburbs of Melbourne?

It's not in any of Australia's reputable newspapers.
Strange isn't it? And this happened on Saturday
afternoon?

And you believe it?

Hmmmmmm.

Amazing.

cont'd ...

That reminds me of Sister Mary Virgilius telling
our school assembly - "Girls remember one-hour's
of pleasure and you will burn in hell for all
eternity!"

And a young voice from the back of the class-room
cried out:

"Sister, how do you make it last an hour?"

Goverments do not rely on tax for social security! dont beleive me? please read on.

Lets get this very very clear.

If the govt wanted to, they can create all the money for their own uses out of thin air using the exact same meathod the banks use. Tax is used to hide the fact that the banks wont permit the Aus, govt to create the money it needs.

Reda, The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,

In 1937 there was a royal commission into banking in Australia. The head of which said at the end of the enquiry:

"The Commonwealth Bank can make money available to Governments or to others on such terms as it chooses - even by way of a loan without interest, or even without requiring either interest or repayment of the principal."

There was no tax regieme in Australia until WWII when a one off tax was introduced to fund the Aus contribution to WWII.

Get this through your heads people.

Referundemdrivensocienty Quote "If the govt wanted to, they can create all the money for their own uses out of thin air using the exact same meathod the banks use."

Government can do this create money out of nothing BUT the banks do not they create money from the promise (or contract) of an entity they are giving the money to to pay it back usually with interest.

Foxy

Person in burqa 'robs fast food store in Melbourne’s east'

A person wearing a burqa has allegedly robbed a fast-food outlet in Melbourne's east, police say.

Officers were called to the store on Main Street in Croydon just after 5.30pm on Saturday and have since charged a 38-year-old man and are questioning a 21-year-old woman.

Police said the person who allegedly robbed the store was wearing a head covering similar to a niqab or burqa.

The pair have been charged with three other armed robberies.

They allegedly robbed a fast-food outlet and a service station in Morwell and a Traralgon business on Monday.

The Narre Warren woman is assisting police with enquiries.

The Frankston man was charged with armed robbery and other related offences over Saturday's incident and will appear at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on Friday.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/36811469/melbourne-woman-burqa-allegedly-robs-fast-food-store/

Referundemdrivensocienty,
Technically that's wrong. Governments do rely on tax for social security; just not in the way most people think.

Currency issuing governments can indeed create money out of thin air. But that's no substitute for taxation. Taxation is needed to give the money value. If the government creates money but does not have an effective taxation system then even with a floating currency there's a danger of hyperinflation.

____________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

She may have done, but it's hardly an original idea. ISTR something similar happening on an episode of Due South.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I'd rather avoid creating a problem than react to one.

Unfortunately to most of the (few) women who wear burqas it is a sign of religion. It's sad, but banning burqas won't change their opinion. A burqa ban won't improve their social life at all - indeed it's far more likely to make them hikikomori.

This is Australia - everyone should be free to wear what they want to.