akiralx Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 ....says chief immigration psychiatrist http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/-sp-australias-detention-regime-sets-out-to-make-asylum-seekers-suffer-says-chief-immigration-psychiatrist One of the comments: An excerpt from The Governor General Peter Cosgrove addressing the commemoration of the beginning of WW1. "As we remember the war we remember the human cost,” the 67-year-old said. "Australians could feel some pride, the governor-general said, about their role in the war in that it illuminated wonderful human values such as a thirst for equity, a determination not to be oppressed and the courage of individuals." Wonderful human values such as a thirst for equity, a determination not to be oppressed and the courage of individuals. Well that's all gone by the board now hasn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 From experience, I know this thread isn't going to go well. For you that is. My advice to you akilrax is to immediately unsubscribe from this thread before you lose all faith in humanity, you've been warned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 From experience, I know this thread isn't going to go well. For you that is. My advice to you akilrax is to immediately unsubscribe from this thread before you lose all faith in humanity, you've been warned A few voices of dissent still need to be raised, to speak out against evil and abuse of power, where ever and whatever shape or form that may take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I'm more interested in why the sudden interest in asylum seekers since Tony Abbott came to office, when there were far greater numbers, and thus far more problems with mental and physical health, and of course far more deaths, during the ALP years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 My last words on the subject: I voted for Tony Abbott because he said he would stop the boats and he has, or if you want to nit pick, one boat in seven months, compared to hundreds of boats and thousands of alleged asylum seekers. I don't give a stuff about so called 'world opinion', which in any case seems to consist of what 'The Guardian' thinks, and we all know what that is. If the flow of boat people has reduced to almost zero, then how can problems be suddenly increasing since Tony Abbott took office? It does not make sense. Before he took office, boats were arriving every day, and some were sinking with all or most of the occupants, which was traumatic for them, and traumatic for our sailors and Customs crews who had to pick dead bodies out of the water. (We have not heard yet about any investigations into Post Traumatic Stress amongst our sailors yet, I notice?) Why the sudden interest in investigating condtions in detention camps since Tony Abbott came to power, when the real problems occurred before he took office because of the large numbers that arrived during Rudd/Gillard/Rudds' terms of office. And why did the numbers increase so much? Because one of the first things that Rudd did was to relax John Howard's policies. Why did he do that? To create a more humane policy? How could it be more humane when so many people drowned? Again, no calls for invesigations into these drownings and mental illness as a result of those deaths, but when ONE person dies in a detention centre, you would think it was hundreds. I don't even understand why anybody wants to see a return to the flow of boats again? Who benefits from it? Huge sums of money expended again by the RAN and Customs and RAAF. Huge numbers of people drowned on unseaworthy boats. Huge profits for unscrupulous people smugglers. Huge sums of money diverted from other areas to pay for illegal immigrants to be looked after. I spoke to a guy the other day who told me it cost him $80,000 to bring his elderly parents to Australia. Why should he and they have to pay such vast sums, whilst others, with dubious claims to being refugees, get in for free? And this is not about being anti-refugee either. Australia lets in a certain number of officially certified refugees every year. Whether that number is too small (or too big) is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on illegal immigrants coming here. If anything, the official refugees are forced to wait longer whilst resources are diverted to process the illegal ones. Bottom line: I'm not ashamed I voted for Tony Abbott, and I'm not ashamed of his policies, and I'm sure that most Australians are not ashamed either. When the next election comes around we will find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted August 6, 2014 Author Share Posted August 6, 2014 Another comment: People have been taught to fear boat people as though it is literally an invasion of our country, or an abuse of our generosity, or a subversion of our orderly immigration process, or a threat to our future social cohesion. It is none of these. Most asylum seekers are found to be refugees, that is people with no home fleeing for their lives. Some of them are economic refugees. None of them, so far and for good reason, are terrorists or fanatical militarists. We can filter out the economic refugees, their stories are usually pretty obvious. We almost don't need to worry about the terrorist element, they do not come by boat. There is no sane reason why we should punish all refugees on the off-chance that they are a threat. Refugees are generally fit young people, often with children, not because they are abusers or blackmailers but because they are trying to save their lives. There are actually not many of them coming to Australia by world standards. So here's the solution: We use the navy to locate asylum seeker boats to prevent drownings and deter illegal fishing. We release the asylum seekers into the community after health and security checks. We send back the economic migrants on the next plane. We inform the Australian public through sane and sympathetic government-media that asylum seekers are no threat and are not a significant population pressure compared to ordinary immigration figures. Lastly, we accept the numbers of refugees we can expect in even a dangerous future, which will not be a great number given our isolation by distance. We understand that our country will change socially as it always has done and that the road to social harmony is a generous and welcoming attitude. The road we are now on leads directly to a future I think we all fear, and it is a road of our own bizarre invention. The sooner we get off it, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 ....says chief immigration psychiatrist http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/-sp-australias-detention-regime-sets-out-to-make-asylum-seekers-suffer-says-chief-immigration-psychiatrist One of the comments: An excerpt from The Governor General Peter Cosgrove addressing the commemoration of the beginning of WW1. "As we remember the war we remember the human cost,” the 67-year-old said. "Australians could feel some pride, the governor-general said, about their role in the war in that it illuminated wonderful human values such as a thirst for equity, a determination not to be oppressed and the courage of individuals." Wonderful human values such as a thirst for equity, a determination not to be oppressed and the courage of individuals. Well that's all gone by the board now hasn't it. Had Britain, and Australia, lost the war, as with WW2, then both nations would have been conquered by foreign invaders. Rightly, of wrongly, that is the way that most Australians feel about boat people. And the 'thirst for equity, determination not to be oppressed, and individual courage', all remain a part of our character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Another comment: People have been taught to fear boat people as though it is literally an invasion of our country, or an abuse of our generosity, or a subversion of our orderly immigration process, or a threat to our future social cohesion. It is none of these. Most asylum seekers are found to be refugees, that is people with no home fleeing for their lives. Some of them are economic refugees. None of them, so far and for good reason, are terrorists or fanatical militarists. We can filter out the economic refugees, their stories are usually pretty obvious. We almost don't need to worry about the terrorist element, they do not come by boat. There is no sane reason why we should punish all refugees on the off-chance that they are a threat. Refugees are generally fit young people, often with children, not because they are abusers or blackmailers but because they are trying to save their lives. There are actually not many of them coming to Australia by world standards. So here's the solution: We use the navy to locate asylum seeker boats to prevent drownings and deter illegal fishing. We release the asylum seekers into the community after health and security checks. We send back the economic migrants on the next plane. We inform the Australian public through sane and sympathetic government-media that asylum seekers are no threat and are not a significant population pressure compared to ordinary immigration figures. Lastly, we accept the numbers of refugees we can expect in even a dangerous future, which will not be a great number given our isolation by distance. We understand that our country will change socially as it always has done and that the road to social harmony is a generous and welcoming attitude. The road we are now on leads directly to a future I think we all fear, and it is a road of our own bizarre invention. The sooner we get off it, the better. I believe that fervently, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 My last words on the subject: I voted for Tony Abbott because he said he would stop the boats and he has, or if you want to nit pick, one boat in seven months, compared to hundreds of boats and thousands of alleged asylum seekers. I don't give a stuff about so called 'world opinion', which in any case seems to consist of what 'The Guardian' thinks, and we all know what that is. If the flow of boat people has reduced to almost zero, then how can problems be suddenly increasing since Tony Abbott took office? It does not make sense. Before he took office, boats were arriving every day, and some were sinking with all or most of the occupants, which was traumatic for them, and traumatic for our sailors and Customs crews who had to pick dead bodies out of the water. (We have not heard yet about any investigations into Post Traumatic Stress amongst our sailors yet, I notice?) Why the sudden interest in investigating condtions in detention camps since Tony Abbott came to power, when the real problems occurred before he took office because of the large numbers that arrived during Rudd/Gillard/Rudds' terms of office. And why did the numbers increase so much? Because one of the first things that Rudd did was to relax John Howard's policies. Why did he do that? To create a more humane policy? How could it be more humane when so many people drowned? Again, no calls for invesigations into these drownings and mental illness as a result of those deaths, but when ONE person dies in a detention centre, you would think it was hundreds. I don't even understand why anybody wants to see a return to the flow of boats again? Who benefits from it? Huge sums of money expended again by the RAN and Customs and RAAF. Huge numbers of people drowned on unseaworthy boats. Huge profits for unscrupulous people smugglers. Huge sums of money diverted from other areas to pay for illegal immigrants to be looked after. I spoke to a guy the other day who told me it cost him $80,000 to bring his elderly parents to Australia. Why should he and they have to pay such vast sums, whilst others, with dubious claims to being refugees, get in for free? And this is not about being anti-refugee either. Australia lets in a certain number of officially certified refugees every year. Whether that number is too small (or too big) is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on illegal immigrants coming here. If anything, the official refugees are forced to wait longer whilst resources are diverted to process the illegal ones. Bottom line: I'm not ashamed I voted for Tony Abbott, and I'm not ashamed of his policies, and I'm sure that most Australians are not ashamed either. When the next election comes around we will find out. I like you! I also have inside dealings with the Offshore Processing Centres, so my views are not in-line with the Guardian where they are all 'angels fleeing oppression'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I like you! I also have inside dealings with the Offshore Processing Centres, so my views are not in-line with the Guardian where they are all 'angels fleeing oppression'. Having had dealings with some of the "angels" once they've been released, I concur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I'm more interested in why the sudden interest in asylum seekers since Tony Abbott came to office, when there were far greater numbers, and thus far more problems with mental and physical health, and of course far more deaths, during the ALP years. Due to the secrecy and lack of transparency. This lot thought the veil of secrecy would make it go away and the ill treatment would go un noticed. You may recall there was far more in the news with every boat being announced. Both parties attempted to ponder to the lowest segment instead of showing leadership and seeking real solutions. Australia is ill served by shoddy politicians on both sides with few indicators of any future improvement as things stand.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 My last words on the subject: I voted for Tony Abbott because he said he would stop the boats and he has, or if you want to nit pick, one boat in seven months, compared to hundreds of boats and thousands of alleged asylum seekers. I don't give a stuff about so called 'world opinion', which in any case seems to consist of what 'The Guardian' thinks, and we all know what that is. If the flow of boat people has reduced to almost zero, then how can problems be suddenly increasing since Tony Abbott took office? It does not make sense. Before he took office, boats were arriving every day, and some were sinking with all or most of the occupants, which was traumatic for them, and traumatic for our sailors and Customs crews who had to pick dead bodies out of the water. (We have not heard yet about any investigations into Post Traumatic Stress amongst our sailors yet, I notice?) Why the sudden interest in investigating condtions in detention camps since Tony Abbott came to power, when the real problems occurred before he took office because of the large numbers that arrived during Rudd/Gillard/Rudds' terms of office. And why did the numbers increase so much? Because one of the first things that Rudd did was to relax John Howard's policies. Why did he do that? To create a more humane policy? How could it be more humane when so many people drowned? Again, no calls for invesigations into these drownings and mental illness as a result of those deaths, but when ONE person dies in a detention centre, you would think it was hundreds. I don't even understand why anybody wants to see a return to the flow of boats again? Who benefits from it? Huge sums of money expended again by the RAN and Customs and RAAF. Huge numbers of people drowned on unseaworthy boats. Huge profits for unscrupulous people smugglers. Huge sums of money diverted from other areas to pay for illegal immigrants to be looked after. I spoke to a guy the other day who told me it cost him $80,000 to bring his elderly parents to Australia. Why should he and they have to pay such vast sums, whilst others, with dubious claims to being refugees, get in for free? And this is not about being anti-refugee either. Australia lets in a certain number of officially certified refugees every year. Whether that number is too small (or too big) is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on illegal immigrants coming here. If anything, the official refugees are forced to wait longer whilst resources are diverted to process the illegal ones. Bottom line: I'm not ashamed I voted for Tony Abbott, and I'm not ashamed of his policies, and I'm sure that most Australians are not ashamed either. When the next election comes around we will find out. Thought it may have been possible that you had a little more substance in the reasoning you give why you voted Abbott, as you engage in political discussion to a large degree. To vote for a slogan some may argue is hardly political maturity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Had Britain, and Australia, lost the war, as with WW2, then both nations would have been conquered by foreign invaders. Rightly, of wrongly, that is the way that most Australians feel about boat people. And the 'thirst for equity, determination not to be oppressed, and individual courage', all remain a part of our character. Actually being over regulated, conformist, parochial and self absorbed is even more the modern character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I believe that fervently, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. But one million migrants in three years doesn't bother you? The over use of 457's in direct competition with Australian workers remains ok? But a few thousand asylum seekers creates concern. Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Having had dealings with some of the "angels" once they've been released, I concur! Ditto as above. Mostly great folk to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 If you asked most men and women of my father and mothers' generation, whether 'Tommy Atkins' or 'Digger', they fought to save their respective countries from totalitarianism, and seeing what has happened in both their countries since the war is an act of betrayal. You would beyond crazy if you think many of them would think that Tony Abbott has betrayed what they fought and died for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 If you asked most men and women of my father and mothers' generation, whether 'Tommy Atkins' or 'Digger', they fought to save their respective countries from totalitarianism, and seeing what has happened in both their countries since the war is an act of betrayal. You would beyond crazy if you think many of them would think that Tony Abbott has betrayed what they fought and died for. Goodness the same argument was used decades back to Keep Australia White. Fact is governments pick and chose which populist lines to run with. When it was no longer viable or desirable to keep out Asians that policy went by the wayside. Easy target putting the boot in the reffo's. This government have shown their disdain towards poorer educated and/or vulnerable Australians. They can retain some of the ground by broadcasting loudly their tough kick ass policy and demeaning of asylum seekers in crass terms by playing the fear card and inherent racist foreigners invading ticket to garner populist support. Does not make them statesmen though rather the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Due to the secrecy and lack of transparency. This lot thought the veil of secrecy would make it go away and the ill treatment would go un noticed. You may recall there was far more in the news with every boat being announced. Both parties attempted to ponder to the lowest segment instead of showing leadership and seeking real solutions. Australia is ill served by shoddy politicians on both sides with few indicators of any future improvement as things stand.. You miss the point. As soon as there was a huge surge in the numbers of boat people, there should have been a clamour of calls for investigations into their wellbeing. There weren't, but as soon as Abbott gets into power and the numbers drop to almost zero, everything changes. Hypocrites. They cared not a fig for the hundreds of people drowned, but just one person is killed in a camp and you would think it was hundreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Goodness the same argument was used decades back to Keep Australia White. Fact is governments pick and chose which populist lines to run with. When it was no longer viable or desirable to keep out Asians that policy went by the wayside. Easy target putting the boot in the reffo's. This government have shown their disdain towards poorer educated and/or vulnerable Australians. They can retain some of the ground by broadcasting loudly their tough kick ass policy and demeaning of asylum seekers in crass terms by playing the fear card and inherent racist foreigners invading ticket to garner populist support. Does not make them statesmen though rather the opposite. And why were those arguments wrong? I'm not arguing for a return to the White Australia policy, nor an end to Australia's official refugee policy. Just pointing out how much Australia and Britain for that matter changed post war, so don't try and tell me that men and women fought for change, rather than preserving the status quo. Incidentally, you might want to look at a few of our Asian neighbours and examine their immigration policies to see just how welcoming they are of people from other races and nationalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 But one million migrants in three years doesn't bother you? The over use of 457's in direct competition with Australian workers remains ok? But a few thousand asylum seekers creates concern. Odd. There wasn't a problem with the 457 visa, until Juliar and her union controllers decided to make one, hypocrites, considering that the one million came in during her watch. And here's another thing. 457 visa holders can't just come into the country for free, and if they fail to get a job or lose their job, they are on their own. No dole for them. Unlike their Aussie counterparts, and unlike the illegals, who all get free this and free that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 It's become clear to me the vast majority of threads i post in now are ones like this. the government could do absolutely anything they like and guess what, you me anyone cant do a damn thing about it. except type, talk and whinge. democracy, the people running the country.... hows that going? still its something to do. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echidna66 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 It's become clear to me the vast majority of threads i post in now are ones like this. the government could do absolutely anything they like and guess what, you me anyone cant do a damn thing about it. except type, talk and whinge. democracy, the people running the country.... hows that going? still its something to do. lol Yes we could do something about it...I mean we pay them to do what they do, dont we?..When you look at the morons we have running this country, the people could wipe them out, but will never happen as Xfactor and footy rules..they have us right where they want us.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I see there are long queues gathering at Calais again, of "asylum seekers" trying to escape France to get to the UK. Are there really escaping persecution in France and all the other European countries they have crossed, or are they just drawn by the overly generous benefits system in the UK. I think the latter. It seems that some are rather more gullible and refuse to believe that anybody could do this for economic reasons and would believe anyone that says they are fleeing persecution. As for the first post, I am disgusted that anyone would look to draw a parallel with WW1. How insulting to all those that gave their lives. They were brave, they stood and fought for their country, for principles and for future generations. They did not look to bail out, seeking a better life whilst abandoning the vulnerable. Which is exactly what those currently coming in on boats are doing, if we were to believe in this persecution that is. I am very happy for Australia to take in people on humanitarian grounds. I don't know what the right number is, but I am sure I would not bat an eyelid if they trebled or quadrupled the current intake, times by ten even. But I would like them to come through proper channels, not because they can pay for boat passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 As for the first post, I am disgusted that anyone would look to draw a parallel with WW1. How insulting to all those that gave their lives. They were brave, they stood and fought for their country, for principles and for future generations. Perhaps you could remind us all what principle was being stood for by trying to invade a sovereign country 13,000 kms away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Perhaps you could remind us all what principle was being stood for by trying to invade a sovereign country 13,000 kms away? If I knew what you were talking about, then maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.