Should the 'diversity' tail always be allowed to wag the immigration policy dog?

What should be the goals of immigration: to benefit prospective migrants, there are teeming millions of them, or to meet identified skills deficiencies in Australia?

Les Twentyman wrote an opinion piece in
The Herald Sun, Friday, December 29, 2017
entitled - "Put the boot into Romper
Stomper."

He talks about the connection between movies
and television programs and crime. A connection
that has been made time and again throughout
the history of the entertainment media.

He tells us that now, as our societal standards
have fallen, the level of violence on our
screens has ramped up as has its impact on the
impressionable and the mentally ill.

Mr Twentyman tells us that some who view violence
based programs, from "A Clockwork Orange," through
to "Fight Club," "Dexter," and "Sons of Anarchy"
find a need to re-enact the dark work of their
favourite characters.

He questions the upcoming Australian series,
"Romper Stomper," a remake of the '90s film that
launched Russell Crowe's career.

Mr Twentyman reminds us that in 1992 the original
film caused some serious problems on the streets
of Melbourne, inciting a wave of gang violence and,
in his view, driving the weapons culture that still
exists in the city today.

He claims that the film made violence in the name of
"race" seem cool. Like the upcoming TV series, it is
nothing more than violence masquerading as entertainment.

Mr Twentyman states that "Given some of the problems
many of our youth face today, such as high
unemployment rates, poverty, and a growing disassociation
from society, releasing a series based in this city, that
glorifies gangs and violence is akin to throwing a lit
cigarette out of the window while driving through the
forest on a 40C' day.

He claims that while stories of youths running amok from
one side of the city to the other are seemingly a regular
occurrence, this series is the last thing this city needs.

Mr Twentyman ends by saying that "while I respect art in all
forms, in this instance I cannot support what I believe to be
social vandalism. And I hope that the streaming service
planning to air the show has a rethink, and bins the program
altogether."

Is Australia knowingly importing people with Mental Illness? Yes we are & pushed by all the Do Gooders. Now recently a little girl was sent back to where she came from because she had Downs Syndrome. Oh, she was from Britain, did I mention that?. Yet, these Do-Gooders openly push for people, they even claim have mental illness to be allowed into Australia. Weather these people acquired the mental illness in Nauru, etc, or had a mental Illness before leaving their own Country is neither here or there. They have a Mental Illness, therefore they must be refused. Otherwise they are free to commit as many violent crimes as they wish & get away with them under the guise of Mental Illness. Let keep them in Victoria, at least.

We ask for what we get.

People with Mental Illnesses must the treated the same as any others that are refused for being a burden on the Health Care, not to mention the Courts.

Same paper, Foxy, huge importation of Khat. But not relevant according to you? Are you blind?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/huge-seizure-of-druglike-plant-at-melbourne-airport-20151112-gkxcc4.html

Women seem to disagree with you,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat

"Melbourne's East African Women's Foundation had pushed for it to be banned back in 2009. The group claimed the plant brought on mood swings, predominantly in male users, which was contributing to domestic violence."

As for this patronising politician statement, "That must start by ensuring
we have laws in place that cannot be avoided by those who commit crimes", isn't it clear from the behaviour of the gangs in Melbourne that they laugh at arrest?

As per usual you are blame-shifting and making Australia, its police and citizens (and failing that,the film industry!) responsible for the toxic behaviour, traditions, political systems that have been imported with migrants.

Of course the Victorian government needs to lift its game. But the question arises how did the problem develop in the first place and why are those who reject out laws and way of life still here?

Hi there BAZZ...

In criminal jurisprudence there's a world of difference between mental illness, and the classic definition of insanity, as defined by the McNAGHTEN judgement...and absolutely 'NO' difference at all, which sounds like a contradiction?

It's my understanding every adult human, has at one time or other, suffered from some form of mental illness to a greater or lessor degree. As opposed to an episode of insanity. The term mental illness is a nice way of saying you suffer from some (usually temporary) non-organic illness like; depression, anxiety, abnormal fear, eating disorder etc etc. BAZZ I'm only a low ranking plod, not a Forensic Psychiatrist, so I stand to be corrected, absolutely!

Usually a crime where insanity is claimed as a defence, involves violence or death. In every crime (except those classed as 'strict and absolute'), there must exist two vital elements:

(i) Actus reus - The criminal act;

(ii) Mens rea - The criminal intent;

The Actus reus is part of that Latin maxim meaning; 'an act does not make a person guilty - unless his mind is guilty'.

When a defence of Insanity is mounted, there's usually an absence of the 'mens rea' (the criminal intent). In other words, '...because of a disease of the mind, he doesn't realise, that what he is doing, is wrong...' - an element of the McNagahten Rule of 1834. I'm sorry BAZZ, I've not explained it very well unfortunately. I do hope it helps a little in any event?

leoj,

I cited two articles written by two different
commentators in the Herald Sun that I thought
would add something to the discussion that you started.
Nowhere in these articles does it mention me or my views.
And I was not aware that I needed your permission as to
what articles I could/should cite from.

If you don't like the views expressed by either of the
parties - you only have to say so. And tell us why.

Also