flag of convenience Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Yes the link confirms my point about the numerical link between queue jumpers and those applying through the proper channels. It even confirms that this logic has a "basis in fact". Well it isnt just "basis in fact". It is fact. I guess the author just couldn't help but try to qualify the comement, perhaps they are biased do you think? Refugee Council of Australia? So I didn't learn anything new here, this is pretty basic stuff. What I want to know is why some on this thread would prefer to see queue jumpers being resettled than those that came through the proper channels. Can anybody answer that question? The evidence so far is no, nobody can justify this. You see that the evidence suggests that most asylum seekers are genuine. I see that it was hard to prove that they are not. Because of "lost" documentation and significant incentive for telling lies. Perhaps your own critical thinking is a bit lacking here. But genuine or not, I also still think you are just not understanding what people are saying. Australia takes a quota, nobody on this thread has suggested that we reduce this quota or stop taking altogether. So your comments about demonising the oppressed and Christianity etc are misplaced. This is about a fairer system and an end to queue jumping. ETA. I have now seen those of us pleased with the boat policy called ignorant and racist. To add to that you are now suggesting that we are not capable of critical-thinking (do you not think it is weird that only the clever people that agree with you are apparently capable of that) and that we are looking to "demonise the oppressed" (roll eyes). How about discussing the issue instead of resorting to insults? For your information many in camps are not in possession of documents. They were hardly in possessions to approach local authorities in their home countries for papers and/or the situation in certain countries was far too chaotic for the issue of such documents. For your information countries in a state of civil/war often do not have a functioning system or the need to travel to the capital is not possible. That is not to say many do have papers as well which enables them to board aircraft and do indeed destroy en route. A tactic well used to take enable a lodgement of claim to further their advantage but not illegal in itself. Critical thinking indeed. What critical thinking is involved when the state breaks an agreement it has not only been part of the formation but signatory as well. Perhaps a bit of critical thinking may not go astray with regards to that. Of course there is a racist element to the matter and ignorance to boot. I don't see any comments from the stop reffo brigade at any cost, concerned about looking at other more humane solutions. Not one comment on keeping kids locked up in such conditions. Yet I assume some of you would consider yourself fair parents? Yes how about discussing the in and outs instead churning the same rhetoric at least your not mentioning my alleged aged discrimination of late. (eyes turn around in head at disbelief) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 So a few thousand men, women and children drowning at sea is not a pressing issue ? That is an issue...but that isnt what you argue. You want no boats arriving and are really happy that there hasn't been. If you were worried about human life you would want all boats that depart to safely arrive surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm surprised this thread is still running - it's a re-hash of a subject that has been covered multiple times before, and the rhetoric remains the same (on both sides). I'm not accusing anyone of racism - I think in some people there is perhaps a lack of critical thinking and a willingness to accept as fact what appears in the media My goodness how patronizing can you get ?? It reminds me of the poster who chastised me to not read newspapers that weren't reputable. A reputable paper being one that obviously agrees with her point of view in its editorials. Newsflash ! It is the height of arrogance to assume that someone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent, or just hasn't thought through the issue deeply enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 So a few thousand men, women and children drowning at sea is not a pressing issue ? I would have thought the dehumanising treatment at the hands of your government to be more pressing. It is done in your name. Calling people by numbers and not names all part of the process. What is to say those people wouldn't have died where they were? Be that at home or in camps. Life expectancy wouldn't be long in those camps,imo. Those people are adults and take calculated risks. A convenient fall back for those that wish to claim some moral ground in their immoral stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 That is an issue...but that isnt what you argue. You want no boats arriving and are really happy that there hasn't been. If you were worried about human life you would want all boats that depart to safely arrive surely? No I want no-one trying to get here illegally by boat. Apart from the queu jumping aspect it is incredibly dangerous and children and babies have drowned when they were forced onto boats by their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 I would have thought the dehumanising treatment at the hands of your government to be more pressing. It is done in your name. Calling people by numbers and not names all part of the process. What is to say those people wouldn't have died where they were? Be that at home or in camps. Life expectancy wouldn't be long in those camps,imo. Those people are adults and take calculated risks. A convenient fall back for those that wish to claim some moral ground in their immoral stance. If only they were all adults. Unfortunately not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 My goodness how patronizing can you get ?? It reminds me of the poster who chastised me to not read newspapers that weren't reputable. A reputable paper being one that obviously agrees with her point of view in its editorials. Newsflash ! It is the height of arrogance to assume that someone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent, or just hasn't thought through the issue deeply enough. Newsflash. It's not the papers one reads, it's the though behind the stance one takes. Intelligent/aware folk by and large are taking a different view regardless to what a few reffo bashers on this forum think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Newsflash. It's not the papers one reads, it's the though behind the stance one takes. Intelligent/aware folk by and large are taking a different view regardless to what a few reffo bashers on this forum think. There you go again Flag. Anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you is branded less intelligent in just about every thread you take part in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If only they were all adults. Unfortunately not. Afraid that doesn't altar the situation. Your government is looking up folk that have committed no crime including women and children in your name. Worse you and cohort applaud it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 There you go again Flag. Anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you is branded less intelligent in just about every thread you take part in. No need for an inferior complex. The fact remains in the meetings I have attended on the issue the majority would have been in the higher educated mould. Not all but most along with students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Well I have a degree so don't consider myself a dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Do you honestly believe parley that the boat issue was to pick up votes from the more educated end of society? Even if you agree with it? Newsflash: most politicians are concerned with getting elected. In Australia unlike the UK the lower socio economic end turn up and vote, therefore policies need to be tailored to encourage these people to vote for their party. Which election issue do you think was tailored for their votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'll give you a clue...it wasn't paid parental leave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Yes of course. The majority of the electorate are very concerned about this issue. That is why both major parties have similarly tough policies. No argument from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 No need for an inferior complex. The fact remains in the meetings I have attended on the issue the majority would have been in the higher educated mould. Not all but most along with students. No inferiority complex here Flag. Whatever gave you that idea? :cool: I'm sure there's intelligent and not so intelligent people on both sides. If you measure intelligence by having degrees, going to Uni, that sort of stuff then Tony Abbot would be right up there wouldn't he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Yes I think bringing intelligence into it is a total furphy. Labor and Liberal politicians have different ideologies about most things. But many of them are Lawyers and the like. So obviously very intelligent people on both sides of politics who happen to think very differently on many issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 I someone who favors a republic more intelligent that someone who favors a monarchy ? No. Is a gay marriage supporter more intelligent than someone who opposes it ? No. Maybe someone who argues this is relevant may not be too intelligent though :chatterbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'll give you a clue...it wasn't paid parental leave... Why? Do you think the the "lower socio economic end" don't care about paid parental leave? I would have thought it would concern them just as much as the upper socio economic end, maybe moreso, they might need the extra cash of two partners working and the longer leave would be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Why? Do you think the the "lower socio economic end" don't care about paid parental leave? I would have thought it would concern them just as much as the upper socio economic end, maybe moreso, they might need the extra cash of two partners working and the longer leave would be a bonus. It was a clear ploy to get votes from high earning women who Traditionally aren't big Tony Abbot voters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 It was a clear ploy to get votes from high earning women who Traditionally aren't big Tony Abbot voters High earning women would more than likely be Liberal voters anyway, doesn't really matter who's running the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 It was a clear ploy to get votes from high earning women who Traditionally aren't big Tony Abbot voters What point are you trying to make ? I don't get where you're going with all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 No. Ill believe your original answer Endless, which dies tend to show they are not genuine asylum seekers, who will stay uf they cant get to Australia. Fair enough PC. After ninety-odd pages I doubt anyone is going to change your mind. :smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Afraid that doesn't altar the situation. Your government is looking up folk that have committed no crime including women and children in your name. Worse you and cohort applaud it. What would you do, Flag? Assuming you did not enjoy seeing the boats almost every day arriving in Australian waters, and, if they were lucky, rescued by the RAN? You obviously want the boats to resume, if it really is the monsoon season that stopped them. The people who own the boats are Indonesian crooks, almost certainly bribing the Indonesian authorities not to hinder their passage, and the boats and crews are not seaworthy, hence the hundreds who have drowned. I remember you mocked my suggestion that Australia send ships and/or planes to Indonesia to pick up anybody who wanted to come, so, what would you do? How would you arrange for all the asylum seekers to take safe passage to Australia? Increase the numbers of official refugees perhaps? But what if that only encouraged more people to try to come? Ask the Indonesians to set up 'holding areas' (i.e. 'camps') on their territory where people can be processed? Assuming the Indonesians would agree to it? (slim chance) and of course that would be no different to our present camps on Nauru and PNG. And again, how do we transport the people to Australia? Where do we hold them for processing, without the stigma of 'imprisonment?' Presumably, in the years before Rudd came to power and the number of boats was almost zero, you must have been annoyed, and you are annoyed with Abbott now. It seems, as I said before, that the only time you were happy was when the boats came almost daily in the Rudd/Gillard years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 [/b] Fair enough PC. After ninety-odd pages I doubt anyone is going to change your mind. :smile: Or yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 They can apply through the proper channels then, like others waiting in camps for resettlement. You still haven't explained why these queue jumpers should be able to jump the queue ahead of others in need that have gone through the proper channels. Could you just address that point specifically, without accusing everyone of racism, because for pages and pages now it has been one of the key reasons why so many people are glad the boats have stopped. I think that if people are desperate and in fear of their lives, or their children's' lives, then they will do anything they can to survive. Paying smugglers large sums of money and enduring the misery of a dangerous crossing over hundreds of miles of open ocean is not something that I would wish on my worst enemy, but they do it because they are desperate. I'm sure for Brits who have waited patiently for their visas to Australia it comes across as queue-jumping, but for me they're (in the main) desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances. If I was in their situation I'd be tempted to do the same. I don't know what evidence there is out there to suggest that people waiting in overseas camps have their chance of assessment impaired by the need to process arrivals by boat in their place. That they in effect are the victims of what many in this country perceive of as 'queue-jumping.' I'm no expert, and would never pretend to be. Maybe an one answer is to process both groups alongside each other in safe assessment centres on Australian soil?. Those who are assessed as legitimate can be granted asylum and those who are not can be repatriated. It's an expensive solution granted, and I have no idea how it would stack up against the cost of running the camps in PNG and Manus and the R.A.N. policing Australia's waters, but it seems like a fairer solution than the current one where the people in the Manus and PNG camps seem to have little chance of making it to the safety of Australia. For the record Rupert, I have not accused you or any other poster on this thread of racism. I direct you back to a previous response I made to you where I made it clear that I do not see everybody who supports the government's policy as racist, but that there would certainly be racists who would support the policy. An important distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.