Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 [/b][ATTACH=CONFIG]20254[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]20255[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]20256[/ATTACH] Papua New Guinea - If you don't love it, leave. Yep I couold dig up a few stories about just about anywhere on the planet, including the UK where necklace killings were happening in Moss Side where my wife worked, just for a girl marrying into the wrong race. Like I said before, drive by shootings in Western Sydney, so maybe not too safe a place there either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 No fascination, just that the other poster said Australian society would hardly know they were here. I was just pointing out that they would change their minds if they went to Western Sydney. Doubtful they would still know. How to tell a refugee from an immigrant? It is a very multi cultural area. Some like that others feel threatened same everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yep I couold dig up a few stories about just about anywhere on the planet, including the UK where necklace killings were happening in Moss Side where my wife worked, just for a girl marrying into the wrong race. Like I said before, drive by shootings in Western Sydney, so maybe not too safe a place there either. Did the British Government advise people not to enter the Moss Side area Paul, or was it the subject of an Amnesty International campaign to highlight human rights abuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 All sides of politics want to stop the boats, whether you think its legal or not. If for no other reason than the hundreds (or is it thousands ?) who have already drowned. And if you encourage more to come hundreds more will drown. So whatever your view and the politician's views on the treatment of asylum seekers, pretty much all agree we need to stop the boats coming. Ant that requires harsh policies that will act as a deterrent. We have already seen that when the policies were softened, it resulted in waves upon waves of boats coming in. So while you think your policies are humane, they will actually lead to hundreds of deaths on the high seas. Including children and babies which is heart breaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 ..........so Rudd has come up with more..............asylum and refugee policies that are still sadly characterised by human tragedy, political opportunism, policy failure and great cost..........and for the people who will be mostly affected by this.......... ...........he has made their situation worse........IMO....... ...........I and others can sign as many petitions..... ..........help in centres..... ...........vote for reform...... ............but until an Australian politician.........makes it their business...... ............to recognise.......accept .....,,,and DO......something to help the people so desperate .......they put their lives at the hands of the unscrupulous............! ............I am thankful.........every day....... .............I have a choice of where to live..... .............that my homeland isn't torn apart by war.......and family living in fear..... ..............that me and my children...... ...............are living in a lucky country..... ................I left because where I was at.........wasn't fulfilling our needs...... .................but it was a choice..........a lifestyle.........for a better lifestyle ....................not ......a life.......or not a life.......! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 Good article. Australia's deal with Papua New Guinea is vulture capitalism at its worst By throwing money at its empoverished neighbour, Australia treats Papua New Guinea with contempt. Once again, it is private companies and not people which will benefit from this move http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/vulture-capitalism-papua-new-guinea-australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 All sides of politics want to stop the boats, whether you think its legal or not. If for no other reason than the hundreds (or is it thousands ?) who have already drowned. And if you encourage more to come hundreds more will drown. So whatever your view and the politician's views on the treatment of asylum seekers, pretty much all agree we need to stop the boats coming. Ant that requires harsh policies that will act as a deterrent. We have already seen that when the policies were softened, it resulted in waves upon waves of boats coming in. So while you think your policies are humane, they will actually lead to hundreds of deaths on the high seas. Including children and babies which is heart breaking. I don't think you can really stop people fleeing from violence and oppression in their countries of origin as it's a natural human response to try and protect yourself and your family. Western countries like the UK, the US and Australia have played a part in the large displacement of people caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as two examples, and we really have to take some responsibility for this. That's not to say that the plight of all refugees are solely our fault or our responsibility, but the world looks to the west for leadership and our countries have a moral responsibility to assist. I'd take issue with you on one point though, I don't think Australian politicians are motivated by morality when it comes to wanting to stop boats entering their waters. I doubt they worry as much as you do about people drowning, it more about who looks toughest on this issue in front of the Australian electorate. I would echo Tink's reminder that it is not illegal to seek asylum, it's a fundamental human right. In my view we therefore have a responsibility in the first instance to assume that all asylum-seekers are genuine and only after proper assessment deport people back to their country of origin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Did the British Government advise people not to enter the Moss Side area Paul, or was it the subject of an Amnesty International campaign to highlight human rights abuses? The British Government didn't mate you just knew by word of mouth and experience that it wasn't a healthy place to be. Even the cops walked round in pairs and didn't bother going there after dark. It's all gone now anyway, they demolished the area years ago when they had the commonwealth games. It would have been a good place for amnesty International to do a bit of research, might have frightened them as to what was happening in the UK though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 In truth I think that's the point of the policy. It's a deterrent, they might have second thoughts if they aren't going to make it to the Aus. If it stops people getting on boats then job done. I'm sure PNG will get millions for doing this btw which will, hopefully, improve the lifestyle available for a lot of ordinary PNG citizens, as well as providing a safe environment for asylum seekers. If they are truly looking for a new start in a new place then give PNG a go. You never know they might like it. Yeah someone could also start a new web forum called POMS in PNG :biggrin: If there genuinely escaping death or persecution then PNG would still be a good option would it not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yeah someone could also start a new web forum called POMS in PNG :biggrin:If there genuinely escaping death or persecution then PNG would still be a good option would it not. Hmmmm.....The murder rate in PNG is 13-times that in Australia – and closer to strife-torn Sierra Leone, according to most recent World Health Organisation figures – and the government's response has been retrograde threats to impose the death penalty.Corruption is also rife. The respected monitoring group Transparency International ranking PNG a lowly 150 out of 176 countries surveyed. Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/numbers-dont-lie-png-solution-flawed-20130719-2q8yr.html#ixzz2ZqUQcORS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yep I couold dig up a few stories about just about anywhere on the planet, including the UK where necklace killings were happening in Moss Side where my wife worked, just for a girl marrying into the wrong race. Like I said before, drive by shootings in Western Sydney, so maybe not too safe a place there either. Although even Moss Side doesn't warrant 100 plus folk accepted as refugees, as has been the case of PNG nationals who have been accepted as such over three years in Australia. Mostly women after extreme sexual/physical abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 All sides of politics want to stop the boats, whether you think its legal or not. If for no other reason than the hundreds (or is it thousands ?) who have already drowned. And if you encourage more to come hundreds more will drown. So whatever your view and the politician's views on the treatment of asylum seekers, pretty much all agree we need to stop the boats coming. Ant that requires harsh policies that will act as a deterrent. We have already seen that when the policies were softened, it resulted in waves upon waves of boats coming in. So while you think your policies are humane, they will actually lead to hundreds of deaths on the high seas. Including children and babies which is heart breaking. That can express the dire need for folk to risk everything including their life to flee and attempt asylum crossing the Indian Ocean on a small boat. Many more thousands have perished crossing to Italy, where some 100,000 odd arrive each year from North Africa. A true asylum seeker will not be perturbed by the risk factor if in a risk situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 That can express the dire need for folk to risk everything including their life to flee and attempt asylum crossing the Indian Ocean on a small boat. Many more thousands have perished crossing to Italy, where some 100,000 odd arrive each year from North Africa. A true asylum seeker will not be perturbed by the risk factor if in a risk situation. Well they shouldn't be perturbed by the risk of going to live in PNG then should they.:cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 The British Government didn't mate you just knew by word of mouth and experience that it wasn't a healthy place to be. Even the cops walked round in pairs and didn't bother going there after dark. It's all gone now anyway, they demolished the area years ago when they had the commonwealth games. It would have been a good place for amnesty International to do a bit of research, might have frightened them as to what was happening in the UK though. Doubt it UK had more than enough of its own, white ethnic home grown to keep it going, check out Glasgow, especially of thirty years ago for starters, plenty of areas in white English neighbourhoods as well. I'm thinking Coventry etc.....deprived areas angry people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well they shouldn't be perturbed by the risk of going to live in PNG then should they.:cool: PNG is not a settlement country. It is a country people flee to gain asylum from rape, crime, persecution, for starters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 .......further back in this thread......Endless Winter made the point that western countries have played apart in the displacement of people and two examples....(..afghan and Iraq wars..) ........so surely if nothing else but our moral obligation to the human race...... ........we have a responsibility to those affected...... .........so easy to say I did not support the action...... .........but so much harder........to be the repercussions.... .........many of these people didn't want these wars......... ........but are living with the consequences....... .........Australia will accept the cream of those society's ..... .........perhaps it's time it also accepted responsibility for the those left behind....without the wherewithal ......the qualifications.... ..........the money or the choices..... ...........a people who were once the backbone of their country .....the unseen workforce..... ...........pushed into a position of fear and poverty....... ...........with no where to turn but to desperate measures....... ...........it's a world problem......... ...........and as such.........should be addressed by all........who agreed with the declaration of human rights... ..Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ..........so come on Australia...........where is your spirit.......? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well they shouldn't be perturbed by the risk of going to live in PNG then should they.:cool: Not sure if you're joking Paul. I really hope that you are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausborn Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Hmmmm.....The murder rate in PNG is 13-times that in Australia – and closer to strife-torn Sierra Leone, according to most recent World Health Organisation figures – and the government's response has been retrograde threats to impose the death penalty.Corruption is also rife. The respected monitoring group Transparency International ranking PNG a lowly 150 out of 176 countries surveyed. Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/numbers-dont-lie-png-solution-flawed-20130719-2q8yr.html#ixzz2ZqUQcORS hopefully this will make them think twice before jumping on a boat now .. It's not such a nice thought for them going to Png as it is Australia. In return it might save their lives as well as their children's. i have a close friend, works here in in gang intervention. Working in the jails and with local authorities to work with young gang members and troubled criminals. He has been to La, London, france , Brazil working with the worst of the worst and trying to find solutions on helping the local authorities to make sure things can stay under control here in oz. Parts of London a very bad. No go zones for most average people. They flew in Americans to try and help a few years ago there, ex gang members were trying to help with the problems. La is getting better , and sadly parts of Australia are getting worse. Sydney gangs are becoming a big problem. Middle eastern descent gangs that should not be here. They dislike everything about the country , yet they have found their way here. Some illegally. Everything in this county needs to be tightened including stopping boats coming in. I think australians look at the big picture and don't want this countries cities turning into a gang zones and people settling here that don't respect the Australian way of life. It's seen time and time again they are coming for handouts and to exploiting the country. Years ago our bikie gangs were australian descent , now they have a big middle eastern presence. They don't want boat people coming here and rioting in detention , which they do constantly because they are not getting there own way. The minority of these boat people with the wrong attitudes made it hard for the genuine refugees to be seen by the public as people just wanting a good chance at a new life. Sadly I think the average person just labels them as trouble now. I do feel for genuine refugees and think everybody deserves a chance, but everybody also has to be monitored and criminals cannot slip through the fence as easy. Its seen on tv , some of these so called refugees on the boats wearing gold chains and having nice rings on there fingers. Rioting in detention , they want ciggies and good treatment. That's what's wrong and why I think majority of Australia will back Rudd on it. Shame cause I don't want to see him in power, but he has made a good call in my opinion. Something has to deter them. This might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Not sure if you're joking Paul. I really hope that you are? Not at all mate. I still think it's a good ploy by Rudd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Not at all mate. I still think it's a good ploy by Rudd. So would it be fair to sum up your view on the subject as being that you don't care where these asylum-seekers end up, so long as they don't end up in Australia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) So would it be fair to sum up your view on the subject as being that you don't care where these asylum-seekers end up, so long as they don't end up in Australia? My view is if they were coming from the camps where they have been queuing up for years and proved to be true asylum seekers then they have the right to stay and should be allowed and helped to settle. The people coming on the boats should be deterred by whatever means necessary. Lets try something, anything. I thought Julia's idea of the Malaysian solution was pretty good and would have increased Aus's intake of refugees substantially, but the opposition killed that idea off in the courts. This time Rudd had been a bit more cagey, he already had an idea what wouldn't work and chose something that it's hard for even the Liberals to oppose, they would probably be more than glad to carry it on should they get elected. It's a lot better than their solution of sending in the Navy to tow boats back and a lot less likely to cause an international incident with a very powerful neighbour. Would it be fair to sum up your view as lets just carry on the status quo and pretend the problem is going to go away? or just let them all in? Just to add, this thread title was "how UK sees rudds decision", posted by Perthbum. Must have been before he checked out the responses to the story on any website and he would have been able to see that just about all the posts were more than supportive of Rudds decision and most thought it would be great if their own PM would adopt something similar.:cool: Edited July 23, 2013 by Paul1Perth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 My view is if they were coming from the camps where they have been queuing up for years and proved to be true asylum seekers then they have the right to stay and should be allowed and helped to settle. The people coming on the boats should be deterred by whatever means necessary. Lets try something, anything. I thought Julia's idea of the Malaysian solution was pretty good and would have increased Aus's intake of refugees substantially, but the opposition killed that idea off in the courts. This time Rudd had been a bit more cagey, he already had an idea what wouldn't work and chose something that it's hard for even the Liberals to oppose, they would probably be more than glad to carry it on should they get elected. It's a lot better than their solution of sending in the Navy to tow boats back and a lot less likely to cause an international incident with a very powerful neighbour. Would it be fair to sum up your view as lets just carry on the status quo and pretend the problem is going to go away? or just let them all in? Just to add, this thread title was "how UK sees rudds decision", posted by Perthbum. Must have been before he checked out the responses to the story on any website and he would have been able to see that just about all the posts were more than supportive of Rudds decision and most thought it would be great if their own PM would adopt something similar.:cool: I think when people end up in your waters then you have a responsibility to assess their status as quickly and humanely as possible. The problem with the camps, quite apart from issues around living conditions, is the apparent inertia around the processing and resettlement of applicants. The numbers of people held in them has been growing and this then poses issues for eventual resettlement. I'm not sure there is a diplomatic answer to the problem as those arriving by boat appear to be coming from a spread of countries, so it really boils down to the practicalities of finding a speedy and humane way to identify whether applicants are genuinely fleeing oppression in their countries of origin. In my view this could be executed safely on Australian soil and would not cost any more than the bung that Rudd is paying the PNG government. I fear that using PNG as effectively a holding cell for those arrivals will simply mean sweeping the problem out of sight. That may well prove to be an election winner for Labor, but it places vulnerable people, many of whom will be genuine asylum-seekers, at risk of abuse in a country with a lamentable human rights record. Out of the frying pan and into the fire as it were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well they shouldn't be perturbed by the risk of going to live in PNG then should they.:cool: You are correct, they have as much chance dying there as on the trip looking at the murder rate in that country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 You are correct, they have as much chance dying there as on the trip looking at the murder rate in that country. But a lot less chance of dying if they had stayed where they were, otherwise they wouldn't have been fleeing in the first place if they are really refugees. I saw Q&A last night. Don't usually watch it as the inane tweets continuously coming in put me off. They put a panel of intelligent experts on and then have Joe Bloggs opinions on whatever splashed all over the screen. Last night the tweets were coming thick and fast and there was one from an Australian lady with a PNG husband. Basically he was disgusted about the way the conversation had gone about PNG and she said something like tell us what you really think about PNG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 For all those happy about the boats coming in greater and greater numbers. One has sunk this morning, at least 60 feared dead. This is one of the tragic consequences of soft policies. More and more drownings. A tough deterrent is needed to deter people from boarding boats. Of course people from Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would love to live in Australia. I get that. But we can't allow it any longer. It must be stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.