Tony Abbott has done it. He has stopped the boats.

[wakeboard1980]

And what?? Armed forces not used against civilians in civilised countries. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? Oh wait....don't bother..

 

So no civilised country uses their armed forces to protect their borders? Well I learn something new every day.

[barbaitch]

'Endless Beacon' is "an endless beacon of light" for reasons unknown to me, but imo he/she earns that accolade purely because he/she can spell, etc! Apologies to those who might take offence at this, but, hey, it's a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned; there's not a lot of it about these days, sadly. No offence intended; it's just nice to see it written as it should be writ!

 

Sincere good wishes to all P-I-Ozzies! xx

[MARYROSE02]

I'm not sure if I've referred to anyone as a 'red necked Bogan' Dave, but seeing as I don't think anyone would ever admit to being a Bogan then I doubt it's caused offence!. Granted, Australians from a lower socio-economic background, with a penchant for mullets and Southern Cross tattoos are the subject of snobbish ridicule, but have they ever been prevented from residing somewhere, from practising their faith, or been spat at in the street or subjected to violence and even death because of their appearance or the way they live their life?. You're right, Australia is still a largely peaceful and tolerant country, and how many others in the world can make that boast?. But, when asylum-seekers arriving by boat are vilified before even having their claims assessed, are held in unsafe detention and the Minister responsible for their treatment boasts of how his constituents urged him to "Keep giving it to 'em and don't back down," then I wonder for how much longer Australia can claim the right to be a tolerant country.

 

In any country there are those who wear their hatred towards and intolerance of others like a badge of honour. In good times they remain a marginalised minority, but in times of actual or perceived crisis, their voices grow louder and their numbers swell. As I've said before, I don't think Australians need to be fearful of asylum-seekers arriving by boat, but nevertheless, there is palpable public fear and anger directed at such new arrivals. The government of this country seem to regard the boats as an enemy to be vanquished, and are preparing to amend legislation which counters racial abuse. Freedom from bigotry, prejudice and violence should be available to everybody in this country. If we allow government to vilify certain groups, to adopt the view that bigots need protecting and amend legislation to afford them protection, then we run the risk of slowly turning from a friendly, welcoming society into an unequal, divided and angry one.

 

It hasn't happened here yet thank goodness, but just because it hasn't doesn't mean it couldn't.

 

Perhaps, whilst frothing at the mouth again, I confused, you with someone else who referred to 'red necked bogans!'

 

How do you control free speech so that people can say what they want, but within reason? How do you regulate the level of alleged abuse? Is 'Pom' or 'Pommie' a term of abuse? Is it a term of abuse if one Englishman or woman takes offence but another doesn't?

 

I said once before that I heard some Sydney fans chanting 'We hate Wanderers' as I came out of the station. Is that racist? It is if a Wanderers fan heard it and was offended, surely? What if they were chanting 'we hate Pommies' before a cricket match against England. Would that be racist?

 

Every single argument between two people of more, could be construed as being racist, if one or more parties felt offended.

 

What exactly was it that Andrew Bolt said that was so offensive? Have attacks against aborigines intensified since he made his remarks, or diminshed since the court ruled against him?

 

What about abuse between aborigines as opposed to abuse by non-aborigines. Is that regulated?

[MARYROSE02]

'Endless Beacon' is "an endless beacon of light" for reasons unknown to me, but imo he/she earns that accolade purely because he/she can spell, etc! Apologies to those who might take offence at this, but, hey, it's a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned; there's not a lot of it about these days, sadly. No offence intended; it's just nice to see it written as it should be writ!

 

Sincere good wishes to all P-I-Ozzies! xx

 

Does that mean you are prejudiced against people who can't spell?! Have you taken into account their level of education? Ethnic background? Are you judging their spelling according to white, Imperialist, Colonialist standards?

[Bobj]

Glad you brought up Himmler. A few on here could do worse than learn German and listen to the speeches by Hitler. Make the "We will decide who comes to Australia", speech sound like standard three stuff. Your flippancy continues to over ride your intelligence on this matter I'm afraid.

 

Remember the 7 million???

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[Rupert]

You know exactly and it was brought up at the time. Back fired though didn't it?

 

 

Err ...no? :confused:

[Rupert]

I'm not sure if I've referred to anyone as a 'red necked Bogan' Dave, but seeing as I don't think anyone would ever admit to being a Bogan then I doubt it's caused offence!. Granted, Australians from a lower socio-economic background, with a penchant for mullets and Southern Cross tattoos are the subject of snobbish ridicule, but have they ever been prevented from residing somewhere, from practising their faith, or been spat at in the street or subjected to violence and even death because of their appearance or the way they live their life?. You're right, Australia is still a largely peaceful and tolerant country, and how many others in the world can make that boast?. But, when asylum-seekers arriving by boat are vilified before even having their claims assessed, are held in unsafe detention and the Minister responsible for their treatment boasts of how his constituents urged him to "Keep giving it to 'em and don't back down," then I wonder for how much longer Australia can claim the right to be a tolerant country.

 

In any country there are those who wear their hatred towards and intolerance of others like a badge of honour. In good times they remain a marginalised minority, but in times of actual or perceived crisis, their voices grow louder and their numbers swell. As I've said before, I don't think Australians need to be fearful of asylum-seekers arriving by boat, but nevertheless, there is palpable public fear and anger directed at such new arrivals. The government of this country seem to regard the boats as an enemy to be vanquished, and are preparing to amend legislation which counters racial abuse. Freedom from bigotry, prejudice and violence should be available to everybody in this country. If we allow government to vilify certain groups, to adopt the view that bigots need protecting and amend legislation to afford them protection, then we run the risk of slowly turning from a friendly, welcoming society into an unequal, divided and angry one.

 

It hasn't happened here yet thank goodness, but just because it hasn't doesn't mean it couldn't.

 

Why are you still trying to drag the conversation into this area, a thinly veiled attempt to brand people that are pleased to see positive action around the boats as racists and intolerant. It is absurd. Australia already has plenty of people from other nations living here and more arriving (legally) every day.

 

But as there is a choice between offering resettlement to people through the official channels versus offering resettlement to queue jumpers who arrived by boat, then a large number of people prefer the former. Nothing I have read on this thread so far has yet convinced me that the queue jumper is more deserving or in need.

[Bobj]

I'm not sure if I've referred to anyone as a 'red necked Bogan' Dave, but seeing as I don't think anyone would ever admit to being a Bogan then I doubt it's caused offence!. Granted, Australians from a lower socio-economic background, with a penchant for mullets and Southern Cross tattoos are the subject of snobbish ridicule, but have they ever been prevented from residing somewhere, from practising their faith, or been spat at in the street or subjected to violence and even death because of their appearance or the way they live their life?. You're right, Australia is still a largely peaceful and tolerant country, and how many others in the world can make that boast?. But, when asylum-seekers arriving by boat are vilified before even having their claims assessed, are held in unsafe detention and the Minister responsible for their treatment boasts of how his constituents urged him to "Keep giving it to 'em and don't back down," then I wonder for how much longer Australia can claim the right to be a tolerant country.

 

 

 

There is a small town in central Qld called Bogantungan and they call themselves Bogans for short.:yes:

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[Guest]

If you are not accusing anybody of anything like that, why bring it up on this thread? Well actually, I know you didn't bring it up initially, but why bring it up again on the thread.

I referenced it because I believe that fear, anger and prejudice are at the heart of the current government's policy towards asylum-seekers arriving by boats. In fact, Scott Morrisson virtually sign-posted what this government's policy would be when in opposition;

 

“The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate’s growing concerns about ‘Muslim immigration’, ‘Muslims in Australia’ and the ‘inability’ of Muslim migrants to integrate.

“Mr Morrison’s suggestion was made at a meeting in December at which shadow ministers were asked to bring three ideas for issues on which the Coalition should concentrate its political attack during this parliamentary term.”

In February 2012, a press release on two cases of typhoid found one on an Australia-bound boat:

“When illegal boats turn up in our waters there will always be the risk that people on these boats will carry serious communicable diseases. The more boats there are, the greater the risk of serious diseases presenting …

“As long as Labor’s soft policies on our borders continue, these boats will continue to arrive along with the risks they carry, including people with serious communicable diseases.”

In March 2012, he warned asylum seekers may be carrying guns:

“The guns on our streets, the guns being traded, the guns that form this black market have got into Australia through pretty porous borders.”

And in June 2012, he told 2GB asylum seekers were also arriving cashed-up:

“I’ve been up at Christmas Island I’ve the seen the bags and the various other things of the passengers, and I’ve seen wads of cash before. I’ve seen large displays of jewellery and various other things, so a lot of money floating around when these boats come in is not uncommon as I understand it.”

 

On a previous post I included a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article from January this year which reveals that 60% of Australians polled want even harsher treatment of arrivals by boat. I'm not sure what else those polled would want from their government on this issue, bearing in mind that they are currently held in unsafe, off-shore facilities. Again, I believe that fear and anger are behind those responses, which is why I referenced it. Present government policy, in my view, would seem to be reflecting the desire of the majority of Australians.

[Guest]

There is a small town in central Qld called Bogantungan and they call themselves Bogans for short.:yes:

 

Cheers, Bobj.

 

Thanks Bob. My apologies to the good folk of Bogantungan. No offence intended. :smile:

[Parley]

Not sure about fear, but agree definitely a lot of anger.

[Guest]

Perhaps, whilst frothing at the mouth again, I confused, you with someone else who referred to 'red necked bogans!'

 

How do you control free speech so that people can say what they want, but within reason? How do you regulate the level of alleged abuse? Is 'Pom' or 'Pommie' a term of abuse? Is it a term of abuse if one Englishman or woman takes offence but another doesn't?

 

I said once before that I heard some Sydney fans chanting 'We hate Wanderers' as I came out of the station. Is that racist? It is if a Wanderers fan heard it and was offended, surely? What if they were chanting 'we hate Pommies' before a cricket match against England. Would that be racist?

 

Every single argument between two people of more, could be construed as being racist, if one or more parties felt offended.

 

What exactly was it that Andrew Bolt said that was so offensive? Have attacks against aborigines intensified since he made his remarks, or diminshed since the court ruled against him?

 

What about abuse between aborigines as opposed to abuse by non-aborigines. Is that regulated?

 

 

Which one of us was doing the frothing this time Dave?! :smile:

 

Yep, allowing free speech, whilst preventing hate crime has troubled legislators for decades, it's certainly a complex area. I'd argue that sports fans (Wanderers are some sort of sports team I'm guessing?) informing the opposition that they're not liked isn't racism. Sports fans aren't a race after all. But, visiting fans making gas noises at White Hart Lane because of Tottenham's large Jewish support, would be racist in my view.

 

Re Mr Bolt, I'm no expert on his views, ubiquitous though he seems to be in today's Australia. But, judging by his comments about asylum-seekers drowning in that Guardian article I referenced in a previous post, I doubt he's going to win any humanitarian of the year awards any time soon!

[Parley]

Love reading Andrew Bolt.

He is so eloquent and always makes good sense.

[Guest]

Why are you still trying to drag the conversation into this area, a thinly veiled attempt to brand people that are pleased to see positive action around the boats as racists and intolerant. It is absurd. Australia already has plenty of people from other nations living here and more arriving (legally) every day.

 

But as there is a choice between offering resettlement to people through the official channels versus offering resettlement to queue jumpers who arrived by boat, then a large number of people prefer the former. Nothing I have read on this thread so far has yet convinced me that the queue jumper is more deserving or in need.

 

 

I don't think I'm dragging the conversation into the area of racism in Australia, as I believe that racial prejudice, along with fear and anger are already at the heart of government policy on this issue, and it's the current government's policy that we're discussing here. In evidence, I refer you back a couple of posts to where I have included a number of quotes made by Scott Morrisson (Immigration Minister) in opposition which provide an insight into where LNP policy was headed on this issue. So, are all the people who support government policy racists?. I'd say 'no.' Are there racists who support the policy?, undoubtably.

 

You regard the current policy as 'positive action,' and I'd ask for whom?. For those seeking asylum and arriving by boat I'd argue that it's not, for Australia's reputation internationally I'd argue that it's not, for Tony Abbott's chances of re-election in 2016 I'd argue that it very much is. So what about the Australian people, is it positive for them?. Well, there's the argument sometimes advanced, that tighter borders mean less chance of terrorist atrocities happening on Australian soil, but then again, this country's enemies could just as easily arrive by plane. What about the Australian tax-payer?, how much will the camps in Manus and PNG cost us, along with the cost of the R.A.N. enforcing Operation Sovereign Borders?

 

Of course there has to be a policy. Amongst those arriving by boat there will be a proportion who are not legitimate asylum-seekers. I think that that figure stands at around 10%, but I could mistaken on that. This country can't just let everybody in who wants to come, now that would be absurd. For me, the answer is to assess and process the claims of new arrivals on Australian soil, in safe and humane conditions, with those assessed to not be legitimate claimants returned to their country of origin. It'll cost of course, no question of that. I've no idea how this option would stack up financially compared to the current policy, but I believe it's the right thing to do even if it ended costing more.

 

Mine is a minority view of course and so I'd say that the odds of Australia ever adopting policy like this in the future are sadly pretty long ones.

[Parley]

Your approach was tried and failed by the Labor party.

[Diane]

Love reading Andrew Bolt.

He is so eloquent and always makes good sense.

 

Gotta love the irony....

[Parley]

Illegal Boat Arrivals.

 

Labor - December 20th 2012 to March 29th 2013 (100 days) 66 Boats 3879 people

Liberal - December 20th 2013 to March 29th 2014 (100 days) 0 Boats 0 people

[MARYROSE02]

Why are you still trying to drag the conversation into this area, a thinly veiled attempt to brand people that are pleased to see positive action around the boats as racists and intolerant. It is absurd. Australia already has plenty of people from other nations living here and more arriving (legally) every day.

 

But as there is a choice between offering resettlement to people through the official channels versus offering resettlement to queue jumpers who arrived by boat, then a large number of people prefer the former. Nothing I have read on this thread so far has yet convinced me that the queue jumper is more deserving or in need.

 

Yes, that is true. None of us are racists or bigots. I've never lived in a society as multi-cultural/multi-ethnic/multi everything since I came to Sydney. I walk out of my flat and to my left is a convenience store run by Chinese, whilst to my right is a cafe fun by Cambodians. A little further, I pass another convenience shop run by Chinese, and another cafe, this time run by Vietnamese, and a little further still is a restaurant run by Bangladeshis. They know me by name in all of them.

[MARYROSE02]

[/b]

I referenced it because I believe that fear, anger and prejudice are at the heart of the current government's policy towards asylum-seekers arriving by boats. In fact, Scott Morrisson virtually sign-posted what this government's policy would be when in opposition;

 

“The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate’s growing concerns about ‘Muslim immigration’, ‘Muslims in Australia’ and the ‘inability’ of Muslim migrants to integrate.

“Mr Morrison’s suggestion was made at a meeting in December at which shadow ministers were asked to bring three ideas for issues on which the Coalition should concentrate its political attack during this parliamentary term.”

In February 2012, a press release on two cases of typhoid found one on an Australia-bound boat:

“When illegal boats turn up in our waters there will always be the risk that people on these boats will carry serious communicable diseases. The more boats there are, the greater the risk of serious diseases presenting …

“As long as Labor’s soft policies on our borders continue, these boats will continue to arrive along with the risks they carry, including people with serious communicable diseases.”

In March 2012, he warned asylum seekers may be carrying guns:

“The guns on our streets, the guns being traded, the guns that form this black market have got into Australia through pretty porous borders.”

And in June 2012, he told 2GB asylum seekers were also arriving cashed-up:

“I’ve been up at Christmas Island I’ve the seen the bags and the various other things of the passengers, and I’ve seen wads of cash before. I’ve seen large displays of jewellery and various other things, so a lot of money floating around when these boats come in is not uncommon as I understand it.”

 

On a previous post I included a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article from January this year which reveals that 60% of Australians polled want even harsher treatment of arrivals by boat. I'm not sure what else those polled would want from their government on this issue, bearing in mind that they are currently held in unsafe, off-shore facilities. Again, I believe that fear and anger are behind those responses, which is why I referenced it. Present government policy, in my view, would seem to be reflecting the desire of the majority of Australians.

 

What is wrong with that? Most Australians are neither anti-refugee, nor anti-immigration, but they don't like 'queue-jumpers' or 'economic migrants' posing as refugees/asylum seekers. After all, this change in attitudes is surely a direct result of the sudden increase in boats after Rudd changed the policy?

[MARYROSE02]

Which one of us was doing the frothing this time Dave?! :smile:

 

Yep, allowing free speech, whilst preventing hate crime has troubled legislators for decades, it's certainly a complex area. I'd argue that sports fans (Wanderers are some sort of sports team I'm guessing?) informing the opposition that they're not liked isn't racism. Sports fans aren't a race after all. But, visiting fans making gas noises at White Hart Lane because of Tottenham's large Jewish support, would be racist in my view.

Re Mr Bolt, I'm no expert on his views, ubiquitous though he seems to be in today's Australia. But, judging by his comments about asylum-seekers drowning in that Guardian article I referenced in a previous post, I doubt he's going to win any humanitarian of the year awards any time soon!

 

That's true, but I don't want to see those fans arrested and charged with racism, nor do I want to see Spurs fans (many of them Jewish, for Spurs is a club with a large Jewish support) banned from chanting 'Yids.'

 

There was an article by a Australian Jew and member of both the Israeli Labour Party and the ALP in the Weekend Australian yesterday. He says 'I accept that ignorant bigots will use anti-Semitic stereotypes and deny the Holocaust. (But) The correct response to such racial and ethnic abuse is ridicule, not censorship. Firstly, because it is fundamentally wrong to censor speech in a free society. Secondly, because it does not work.' And he goes on to describe how laws banning hate speech in European countries have resulted in MORE, not less, hatred against both Jews and Muslims.

[newjez]

Why are you still trying to drag the conversation into this area, a thinly veiled attempt to brand people that are pleased to see positive action around the boats as racists and intolerant. It is absurd. Australia already has plenty of people from other nations living here and more arriving (legally) every day.

 

But as there is a choice between offering resettlement to people through the official channels versus offering resettlement to queue jumpers who arrived by boat, then a large number of people prefer the former. Nothing I have read on this thread so far has yet convinced me that the queue jumper is more deserving or in need.

 

I think the race argument is largely irrelevant. It's good to see that people are no longer drowning or being burnt. The only thing that worries me is the ongoing cost to keep this going and whether it is sustainable.

[Guest]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/australia-asylum-seekers-mcadam/?c=&page=1

 

Nice to read an academics opinion on it...

[wakeboard1980]

Illegal Boat Arrivals.

 

Labor - December 20th 2012 to March 29th 2013 (100 days) 66 Boats 3879 people

Liberal - December 20th 2013 to March 29th 2014 (100 days) 0 Boats 0 people

Does the monsoon only happen every other year?

[wakeboard1980]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/australia-asylum-seekers-mcadam/?c=&page=1

 

Nice to read an academics opinion on it...

Why do you need to be an academic to make a valid comment?

[Parley]

Anyone can google an old article to support their views. I'm not sure academics always live in the real world though.

I prefer the view of the populace in most cases.