Are you 'comfortable' with Australia's handling of Tamil asylum seekers at sea?

[flag of convenience]

All right, let's give you a go. (FoC didn't really catch on.)

 

Harpodom, in your opinion, does an asylum seeker have the right to choose where they are eventually settled?

 

I caught on very well a bit like your akin to your failed interview desired technique. The question was answered depending on where land fall is made. Still doesn't give the right to stay without strenuous interview to ascertain if in need or not. The main issue being not the need for them to arrive by boat anyway.

[Diane]

Don't know if anyone watched Who Do You Think You Are with Andrew Denton the other night? Very moving stuff, and as always when the outrages of the 1940s come up, amazing that such things could happen in a supposedly civilised country, where surely normal people must have known what was happening, and yet still it happened. Just shows what the awful results can be when a government decides to demonise a particular race/religion/group of people, with the backing of mainstream media who can influence a population into their own way of thinking, and by keeping what they are doing secret (did you realise that since being sworn in this government have not released a single brief, and requests for information under the FOI act - which they are trying to repeal - are met with requests for $2,000? Strange definition of 'free').

 

Those of you in this post who are spouting back stuff you have read in the Murdoch papers, or repeating three word slogans that Abbott and Morrison have repeated like a mantra so often, should perhaps stop, step back, and wonder just how much your thoughts are being led along a path that someone else wants them to follow, rather than where the conscience of a normal, humane person would want them to go.

 

Isn't there some quote about evil only being able to happen when good men do nothing?

 

http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/

Edited July 12, 2014 by Diane

[flag of convenience]

So you refuse to reveal your opinion as well as FoC.

 

It's really a central question. Genuine refugees aren't too bothered where they go; they're more concerned where they've been (persecuted). Economic migrants are very interested in where they end up. By breaking the link between the place of asylum lodgement and eventual settlement, it becomes far less attractive for economic migrants to enter into the system, whilst not deterring those truly in peril. What this government has tried to do is break the link between arriving here and staying here. For those who were already underway, it's proved to be quite a shock. The "rules", as sold to them by vested interests, have changed.

 

And all this simply doesn't register to you as important. Trying to identify why so many more asylum seeker end up here than, say, in Argentina. Just like FoC, better to try to ignore the important questions than to have your views tested. You often wonder how Tony Abbott got to be leader of the country. Just take a look at the quality of his opposition.

 

Perhaps due to the fact of the geographic location of Argentina if you care to look at a map and note the distance from the trouble spots that dot the world. Wrong to say South America doesn't take refugees though. They do but from within their continent. Colombians are one group at the moment.

 

Genuine refugees can certainly be picky where they go. Most want to go to USA end of. Of course mostly they are in no position to decide and this results in many fractured families scattered around the world. It is not unusual to find folk with family members in three perhaps four different countries on three continents. Many folk that leave would of course prefer a country where they feel a future is offered. Why wouldn't they?

 

Back to the country settlement. I recall when the Irish Republic, made one of its rare selection of refugees from a camp in Thailand, in the eighties. Some 101 were selected and around 56 went into hiding, never having heard of the country and had their minds set on USA or Canada and perhaps France. Those were the countries that had the most teams there selecting and the ones most known.

 

If the government is attempting to break the link of permanent residence, the argument could be said why not house them until safe to return? Why should poor nations such as Pakistan, Guinea, Ghana, Kenya, Iran, Thailand etc, all be expected to house hundreds of thousands under UNHCR support obviously? No simple answer there. Australia needs to lift its number considering the part of the world it finds itself, being a settler country and before it can gloat about its minimal intake or take a moral stance.

[Skani]

Don't know if anyone watched Who Do You Think You Are with Andrew Denton the other night? Very moving stuff, and as always when the outrages of the 1940s come up, amazing that such things could happen in a supposedly civilised country, where surely normal people must have known what was happening, and yet still it happened. Just shows what the awful results can be when a government decides to demonise a particular race/religion/group of people, with the backing of mainstream media who can influence a population into their own way of thinking, and by keeping what they are doing secret (did you realise that since being sworn in this government have not released a single brief, and requests for information under the FOI act - which they are trying to repeal - are met with requests for $2,000? Strange definition of 'free').

 

 

 

Yes, I watched WDYTYA and it was riveting viewing. Couldn't help but think about how totalitarian regimes gain control....and the uncomfortable similarity with techniques being used by this present (bleep, bleep) mob.

[flag of convenience]

I note Abbott's claim that stopping the boats was the most compassionate thing his government has done, claimed yesterday in QLD I believe it was. If that's compassion we have a lot to worry about with this government.

[flag of convenience]

Don't know if anyone watched Who Do You Think You Are with Andrew Denton the other night? Very moving stuff, and as always when the outrages of the 1940s come up, amazing that such things could happen in a supposedly civilised country, where surely normal people must have known what was happening, and yet still it happened. Just shows what the awful results can be when a government decides to demonise a particular race/religion/group of people, with the backing of mainstream media who can influence a population into their own way of thinking, and by keeping what they are doing secret (did you realise that since being sworn in this government have not released a single brief, and requests for information under the FOI act - which they are trying to repeal - are met with requests for $2,000? Strange definition of 'free').

 

Those of you in this post who are spouting back stuff you have read in the Murdoch papers, or repeating three word slogans that Abbott and Morrison have repeated like a mantra so often, should perhaps stop, step back, and wonder just how much your thoughts are being led along a path that someone else wants them to follow, rather than where the conscience of a normal, humane person would want them to go.

 

Isn't there some quote about evil only being able to happen when good men do nothing?

 

http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/

 

Yes by Burke. He also said Reading without reflection, is like eating without digestion.

[MARYROSE02]

blah blah blah...I scan read your post, all I read was 'illegal immigrant', 'destroyed their ID papers', 'terrorists', 'people smuggler'....

 

You wanna cut down on yer Murdoch mate, get some exercise!

 

No mate. We're not at war. We are not fighting a counter insurgency here. No need for state secrets.

 

If you were to read or watch 'Murdoch', you would find a more balanced view expressed than in either the ABC or Fairfax. But then, that is precisely why people hate Murdoch; they do not want any alternative views. Personally, I like to see both sides, and yes, I do enjoy reading the Sydney Morning Herald as much as The Australian. I've noticed that the SMH uses as one of its sources the (British) Daily Telegraph, which is hardly a left-wing newspaper. Sky and Fox both extensively reported on the ongoing enquiries and court cases into The Sun and The News of the World. They were also this week reporting live the enquiry into Manus Island.

 

'No need for state secrets' is a ridiculous statement. No government in the world would follow that 'rule.'

[MARYROSE02]

Sorry but this has been answered so many times. It is for a government to respond to situations in a statesman like manner. It can hardly be claimed this government is running on a platform of consensus politics can it? A shame they use the asylum issue as probably their only populist measure towards getting the public on board. If a vote was held on many contentious issues the populist vote would be clearly counter government policy but only this one is aired with ferocity by demonising and using for political gain. A government void in moral repute.

 

No country in the world holds votes or referendums before it acts on a particular issue. Government would be 'hamstrung' if it did. Instead we (at least in democratic countries) hold a general election every few years, and the party that wins that election, (hopefully) pursues the policies it promised it would.

 

Abbott said he would 'stop the boats' if he won the last election, and he has. Soon, he may well abolish the carbon tax. The few thousand who took part in various 'March in March' and the like do not represent the country as a whole. Tens of thousands more went to football matches on the same day as those elections, demonstrating with their feet, if you like, their support for Abbott. Hang on, though, did football attendances all plummet on those march days?

[Parley]

No country in the world holds votes or referendums before it acts on a particular issue. Government would be 'hamstrung' if it did. Instead we (at least in democratic countries) hold a general election every few years, and the party that wins that election, (hopefully) pursues the policies it promised it would.

 

Abbott said he would 'stop the boats' if he won the last election, and he has. Soon, he may well abolish the carbon tax. The few thousand who took part in various 'March in March' and the like do not represent the country as a whole. Tens of thousands more went to football matches on the same day as those elections, demonstrating with their feet, if you like, their support for Abbott. Hang on, though, did football attendances all plummet on those march days?

 

And many of those complaining are not even citizens and didn't vote in the first place.

Even more ridiculous when you think about it.

[MARYROSE02]

I would say democracies with a clearly written constitution for starters. I can name quite a few. Australia is a less attractive destination than Europe. As for secrecy I can name the ALP as having an open policy on boat arrivals much to their credit, as it did little good in the polling.

 

That excludes the UK for a start as it does not even possess a written constitution, unlike Australia. The USA has a written constitution, but I don't know if it is better than Australia's. The only reason that Europe is more attractive than Australia is the distance. And judging by the numbers of illegal migrants who ignore other, closer, European countries to claim asylum, in order to try to do so in the UK is perhaps a measure of their attractions.

 

Just as a matter of interest, why not name those 'quite a few!'

[Harpodom]

I'm afraid the presumption of guilt on the part of asylum seekers and the perceived need to punish them is straight out of the Tory Bastard's Handbook Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment: select the most vulnerable, traumatised, voiceless people, then demonise them by way of a complicit media and lazy sloganeering, then wait for the baying mob to do the rest.

 

Question to Xenon and parley: have you actually ever met an asylum seeker in real life?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Harpodom

[Harpodom]

[flag of convenience]

No country in the world holds votes or referendums before it acts on a particular issue. Government would be 'hamstrung' if it did. Instead we (at least in democratic countries) hold a general election every few years, and the party that wins that election, (hopefully) pursues the policies it promised it would.

 

Abbott said he would 'stop the boats' if he won the last election, and he has. Soon, he may well abolish the carbon tax. The few thousand who took part in various 'March in March' and the like do not represent the country as a whole. Tens of thousands more went to football matches on the same day as those elections, demonstrating with their feet, if you like, their support for Abbott. Hang on, though, did football attendances all plummet on those march days?

 

Afraid your worldly in question again. No country? Really ? Try Switzerland for starters. Few countries would use asylum seekers as a political football in order to gain populist support. But then the former ill called Lib'd under Howard did swallow a lot of Pauline Hanson's policies. The issue being of course the danger of flaming a race issue.

[flag of convenience]

If you were to read or watch 'Murdoch', you would find a more balanced view expressed than in either the ABC or Fairfax. But then, that is precisely why people hate Murdoch; they do not want any alternative views. Personally, I like to see both sides, and yes, I do enjoy reading the Sydney Morning Herald as much as The Australian. I've noticed that the SMH uses as one of its sources the (British) Daily Telegraph, which is hardly a left-wing newspaper. Sky and Fox both extensively reported on the ongoing enquiries and court cases into The Sun and The News of the World. They were also this week reporting live the enquiry into Manus Island.

 

'No need for state secrets' is a ridiculous statement. No government in the world would follow that 'rule.'

 

You mean like The Australian? May as well be a broadsheet written from Liberal HQ. Check out the meaning of balanced is all I can say.

[flag of convenience]

I'm afraid the presumption of guilt on the part of asylum seekers and the perceived need to punish them is straight out of the Tory Bastard's Handbook Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment: select the most vulnerable, traumatised, voiceless people, then demonise them by way of a complicit media and lazy sloganeering, then wait for the baying mob to do the rest.

 

Question to Xenon and parley: have you actually ever met an asylum seeker in real life?

 

I think it safe to assume the rather obvious there.

[flag of convenience]

And many of those complaining are not even citizens and didn't vote in the first place.

Even more ridiculous when you think about it.

 

Or worse for those that are and do support the punishment of innocents.

[Harpodom]

And many of those complaining are not even citizens and didn't vote in the first place.

Even more ridiculous when you think about it.

 

Sounds like you're losing the argument if you need to resort to that, maaaate

[Harpodom]

So, have flag and I won the internet yet??

[MARYROSE02]

I'm afraid the presumption of guilt on the part of asylum seekers and the perceived need to punish them is straight out of the Tory Bastard's Handbook Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment: select the most vulnerable, traumatised, voiceless people, then demonise them by way of a complicit media and lazy sloganeering, then wait for the baying mob to do the rest.

 

Question to Xenon and parley: have actually ever met an asylum seeker in real life?

 

Personally, yes, I know people who have come here as asylum seekers or refugees, people from Africa, The Middle East, Asia. I'm always interested when I meet someone to ask where they are from, how they came to be in Australia, whether they like living here, do they miss their homeland.

 

You try to portray us as racists and anti-refugees coming to Australia, when all we are opposed to is illegal entry and people-smuggling. We don't want Australia to cut its official refugee intake. We know that most people who come to live in Australia are 'nice' people, and make good citizens, however they come to be here.

[Harpodom]

Personally, yes, I know people who have come here as asylum seekers or refugees, people from Africa, The Middle East, Asia. I'm always interested when I meet someone to ask where they are from, how they came to be in Australia, whether they like living here, do they miss their homeland.

 

You try to portray us as racists and anti-refugees coming to Australia, when all we are opposed to is illegal entry and people-smuggling. We don't want Australia to cut its official refugee intake. We know that most people who come to live in Australia are 'nice' people, and make good citizens, however they come to be here.

 

So were you happy when Abooot et al cut the refugee intake quota?

[flag of convenience]

Sounds like you're losing the argument if you need to resort to that, maaaate

 

I never considered an argument of any real merit was presented in the first place. Not if you want to part take in a decent, humane and not in breach of international legal obligation sort of country, that seeks out real solutions to complicated issues, in place of knee jerk,quasi fascist paths in attempted solutions.

[flag of convenience]

Personally, yes, I know people who have come here as asylum seekers or refugees, people from Africa, The Middle East, Asia. I'm always interested when I meet someone to ask where they are from, how they came to be in Australia, whether they like living here, do they miss their homeland.

 

You try to portray us as racists and anti-refugees coming to Australia, when all we are opposed to is illegal entry and people-smuggling. We don't want Australia to cut its official refugee intake. We know that most people who come to live in Australia are 'nice' people, and make good citizens, however they come to be here.

 

So you appear now to be unofficial spokesman of the reffo haters. In the use of "we" or are you of some majestic class not disclosed previously?

[MARYROSE02]

I am happy with some decisions by the Government, unhappy with others. Why aren't I allowed to claim benefits when I'm out of the work? I just paid $5,000 for an operation out of my,savings. OK, my money, my choice how to spend it, but if cutting the refugee intake and stopping the boats means more money for the,Govt to spend on its own citizens,.I approve. Why does the UK Govt refuse to index pensions paid to UK citizens living here?

 

You want every single person who attempts to come to Australia,.by whatever means, to be taken in,.no checks, just feed them, house them, care for them. The budget is unlimited. We can build homes and hospitals for as many people who want to come. We have a.moral duty to do so. None

[MARYROSE02]

"we" means me and Alan Jones! :-)

[MARYROSE02]

"You" means you and Malcolm Fraser.