This creature, this 'thing', is the first law officer?

[MARYROSE02]

Ever thought about getting professional help?

Ad hominem.

[Rallyman]

I attack Abbott because:

 

a. he's the prime minister

b. he's a totally $hit prime minister

 

the RGR govt was in many ways fairly hopeless but it did navigate the GFC safely.

 

There was a Fairfax article recently which analysed govts purely in terms of legislation passed.

 

By that measure, the Abbott govt is the worst ever. Even worse than Gillard's minority govt.

 

I think near enough anybody could have navigated Austraila through the GFC the position it was in with China expanding as it did. I would liken it to mr average winning a million on the lottery every week but some how end up bankrupt , the debt that has been left is is unbelievable total mismanagement .

 

Would you put Abbott in the same bracket as Thatcher ?

some of the things she did to the Uk were down right despicable leaving many working class areas to rot.

[Diane]

35 years ago, the Zambian security forces murdered an ABC Aussie journalist called Tony Joyce. Fraser connived with the Zambian dictator Kenneth Kaunda to cover it all up.

 

Here is the link, from the Sydney Morning Herald, as I know you would not believe it if it was in a Murdoch newspaper.

 

I don't have a problem with Malcolm Fraser allowing Vietnamese boat people into Australia, especially as Gough Whitlam did not want to allow them in.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-joyce-truth-the-casualty-in-the-unsolved-murder-of-australian-journalist-20150730-gio4sk.html

 

So you vilify someone who covered up a murder 35 years ago, and yet support someone who is complicit in covering up rape, torture, and child abuse (both in Nauru and in the Catholic Church for the latter) in the present day? Weird set of values you have, weird.

[Diane]

I get get you don't like Tony Abbot which is fair enough , but Rudd and Gillard are entitled to the same benefits as well so in reality they are all as bad as each other going by what you are saying but you only attack Abbot why is that ? They both stuffed up big time

The first part of your post is spot on when you say they are there for what they can get out of it for themselves .

 

Of course, it's the case for politicians for all parties. It's wrong. And what is more wrong is that it will continue because it is not in any of their interests to change the status quo. I used Abbott as an example as he is the current example, so what he gets is the current perks of the job. I don't know if any amounts have changed in the past few years, or for that matter if either Rudd or Gillard was in the post long enough to qualify.

[MARYROSE02]

So you vilify someone who covered up a murder 35 years ago, and yet support someone who is complicit in covering up rape, torture, and child abuse (both in Nauru and in the Catholic Church for the latter) in the present day? Weird set of values you have, weird.

 

Alleged cover up of rape and torture, and did Tony Abbott personally order civil servants to cover up those allegations?

 

I don't understand the part about child abuse in the Catholic church? Did Tony Abbott try to prevent the investigations into that abuse, or order his civil servants to do so?

 

If you can offer proof that Tony Abbott has done those things, then I might feel the same way as I do about Malcolm Fraser.

 

It is irrelevant that the murder of an Australian journalist happened thirty five years ago. The crime remains the same, whether thirty five years ago, or yesterday.

 

And I'm happy to admit to caring more about Australians than illegal immigrants.

 

I notice that your set of values include preferring hundreds of said illegal immigrants to die, to alleged ill-treatment in detention camps. I recall the ABC accusing the RAN of torturing illegal immigrants and of course everyone one on the left took it as fact.

 

Finally, how do you feel about Fraser's role in the cover up of the murder of Tony Joyce? That article was in the Sydney Morning Herald, so you can't take the standard left position that if it's in the Murdoch press, it is a lie.

[Parley]

Is this another of Harpo's threads showing how tolerant he is ?

 

:laugh:

[MARYROSE02]

I think near enough anybody could have navigated Austraila through the GFC the position it was in with China expanding as it did. I would liken it to mr average winning a million on the lottery every week but some how end up bankrupt , the debt that has been left is is unbelievable total mismanagement .

 

Would you put Abbott in the same bracket as Thatcher ?

some of the things she did to the Uk were down right despicable leaving many working class areas to rot.

 

I don't know the truth of your allegations about Thatcher. She stared down Arthur Scargill, and God knows what would have happened if he had won. The left in Australia would love it if Australia's coal mining industry was closed down, though they would not give Tony Abbott any credit if he was to do it.

 

I agree with your view on the handling of the GFC. It's possible that the ALP government DID save Australia during the GFC, but there are other, equally valid arguments that it was China's continuing demand for Australian product, and of course Australia's 'big four' banks were never in the poor financial position of some American and British banks.

[Diane]

Alleged cover up of rape and torture, and did Tony Abbott personally order civil servants to cover up those allegations? Tony Abbott brought in a law making reporting such things punishable by jail - how much more proof do you need? Complicit up to his eyebrows.

 

I don't understand the part about child abuse in the Catholic church? Did Tony Abbott try to prevent the investigations into that abuse, or order his civil servants to do so? Does the name George Pell mean anything to you? Tony Abbott has consistently supported this man in his avoidance of answering for his role in covering up child abuse n the church - that makes Abbott complicit.

 

If you can offer proof that Tony Abbott has done those things, then I might feel the same way as I do about Malcolm Fraser. See above

 

It is irrelevant that the murder of an Australian journalist happened thirty five years ago. The crime remains the same, whether thirty five years ago, or yesterday.

 

And I'm happy to admit to caring more about Australians than illegal immigrants. There you go again - they are NOT illegal immigrants in Nauru, they are LEGITIMATE REFUGEES SEEKING ASYLUM.

 

I notice that your set of values include preferring hundreds of said illegal immigrants to die, to alleged ill-treatment in detention camps. I recall the ABC accusing the RAN of torturing illegal immigrants and of course everyone one on the left took it as fact. Oh look, twice in one paragraph you make the same mistake about their legal status! Have you ever asked yourself if maybe you might have been brain-washed?

 

Finally, how do you feel about Fraser's role in the cover up of the murder of Tony Joyce? That article was in the Sydney Morning Herald, so you can't take the standard left position that if it's in the Murdoch press, it is a lie. Like the party and politicians you so blindly follow and parrot, how about you start to look at what is happening TODAY not what happened yesterday and who you can blame it on?

 

My answers in red above :-)

[Parley]

You are wrong Diane.

You cannot be a 'legitimate refugee'seeking asylum. That makes no sense.

 

They are not legitimate refugees until that has been proven.

[flag of convenience]

The fact that corruption and crime exists in other areas of life is irrelevant. You are saying, don't single out trade unions, because everybody is the same. Using that line of argument I could justify not caring about what allegedly happens in the detention camps.

 

Triggs KNEW that something was going on in the camps, that it started when Labor changed the immigration policy, and she could and should have investigated it and reported it whilst Labor was still in power. She didn't because she did not want to embarrass Labor, thus a political decision by someine supposed to be neutral.

 

No I am saying hold the inquiry by all means. Just maintain as neutral as possible umpire. (in this case judge) At least you finally admit to 'something going on in the camps'. We are making progress. Arguments can be made as to what point deep concerns were raised but the point being it got steadily worse under the Lib's. Their reaction alone suggested a lot was not wanted to be in the open. A very poor judgement call by Libs yet again.

[Diane]

You are wrong Diane.

You cannot be a 'legitimate refugee'seeking asylum. That makes no sense.

 

They are not legitimate refugees until that has been proven.

 

How many times do you need to be told, to read, to realise that "seeking asylum/refuge is not an illegal act"?

 

You can call me wrong as much as you like, but I think you will find that this is fact.

 

Here you are: (again)

 

[h=1]SHOULD WE CALL ASYLUM SEEKERS ‘ILLEGALS’? > CHECK THE FACTS[/h]October 23, 2013 · in Immigration

Who: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has instructed staff to publicly refer to asylum seekers as ‘illegal arrivals’.

The Claim: The people who arrive on boats seeking asylum are doing so illegally.

The Facts: Under the UN Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, it is not illegal to arrive by boat and seek asylum in Australia. The Convention states that everyone has the right to seek asylum in Australia.

Discussion of evidence: A previous fact published in June this year outlined why arriving on boat and seeking asylum is not illegal. This evidence has been republished below in light of the change in government rhetoric surrounding asylum seekers.

Under the UN Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, regardless of their method of arrival.

Article 31 of the UN Convention states that asylum seekers cannot be punished for entering a country without authorisation. It is recognised that refugees do not have to obtain travel documentation or travel through authorised channels because it is not always safe or practical to do so.

The Refugee Council of Australia states that asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws by arriving on boats without formal documentation. In a 2002 Federal Court decision Justice Merkel stated that asylum seekers have a “lawful entitlement” under international and domestic law to seek asylum in Australia.

The use of the term ‘illegal’ when referring to asylum seekers has also been recognised by the Australian Press Council as incorrect. They have warned the press that the use of this term is a breach of journalistic ethics and complaints can be brought against them.

[Parley]

Calling someone a legitimate refugee before that has been assessed is obviously wrong.

 

Do you actually understand there is a difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker ?

 

You can't just use the terms interchangeably.

[akiralx]

You are wrong Diane.

You cannot be a 'legitimate refugee'seeking asylum. That makes no sense.

 

They are not legitimate refugees until that has been proven.

 

Nor can you be an illegal immigrant until that has been proven.

 

The vast majority of Australian asylum seekers end up being accepted as legitimate refugees, as has been pointed out many times on this forum.

[Parley]

A bit like calling someone on remand a convicted criminal.

 

At least get the terminology right if you are trying to make factual statements.

[Harpodom]

Nor can you be an illegal immigrant until that has been proven.

 

The vast majority of Australian asylum seekers end up being accepted as legitimate refugees, as has been pointed out many times on this forum.

I think the problem parley and his chums have with asylum seekers is that they aren't in a queue. They actually seek asylum rather waiting like the good little refugees rotting in camps waiting to die.

 

Fact is, asylum seekers who arrive by plane are treated entirely differently to people who arrive by boat, for starters they aren't deported to torture camps

[MARYROSE02]

My answers in red above :-)

 

I know Abbott has supported Cardinal Pell but that does not constitute blocking the Royal Commission's investigations into child abuse by the Catholic church.

 

You are right about the new law and I LIKE IT!

 

The Australian Border Force Act, supported by the ALP and opposed only by the Greens, effectively turns the Department of Immigration into a secret security organisation with police powers. Although the Act seems to be directed at Customs operations, it also seeks to regulate and control access to information about asylum seekers in immigration detention.

 

Under the Act, it is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, for any person working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to reveal to the media or any other person or organisation (the only exceptions being the Immigration Department and other Commonwealth agencies, police, coroners) anything that happens in detention centres like Nauru and Manus Island.

 

I disagree that they are legitimate asylum seekers. People in our official refugee intake are not taken to Nauru or Manus.

 

I note that you ignore the fact that it was a LIE that RAN personnel tortured boat people, but the ABC went ahead and published the story without any checks.

 

And you are dodging my question. The fact that Tony Joyce's murder was covered up 35 years ago has no bearing on what happens today. You are engaged in yet another fallacy, justifying one wrong by citing another.

[MARYROSE02]

I think the problem parley and his chums have with asylum seekers is that they aren't in a queue. They actually seek asylum rather waiting like the good little refugees rotting in camps waiting to die.

 

Fact is, asylum seekers who arrive by plane are treated entirely differently to people who arrive by boat, for starters they aren't deported to torture camps

 

Is that right? There is a loophole in our asylum laws, which I'm frankly surprised the present government has not closed.

 

Mind you, why not just publicise world-wide the fact that Australia is operating 'torture camps'. That will close off the flow of illegal immigrants in an instant. Would you, Harpo, seek refuge in a country that sends refugees to a 'torture camp?' I certainly wouldn't.

 

As you well know, I have no problem with our official intake of refugees, already generous, but if it is increased, I shall have no problem with that either, but I am totally opposed to illegal immigrants.

[Harpodom]

Is that right? There is a loophole in our asylum laws, which I'm frankly surprised the present government has not closed.

 

Mind you, why not just publicise world-wide the fact that Australia is operating 'torture camps'. That will close off the flow of illegal immigrants in an instant. Would you, Harpo, seek refuge in a country that sends refugees to a 'torture camp?' I certainly wouldn't.

 

As you well know, I have no problem with our official intake of refugees, already generous, but if it is increased, I shall have no problem with that either, but I am totally opposed to illegal immigrants.

Except they're not illegal, which makes your argument quite weak.

[Harpodom]

I know Abbott has supported Cardinal Pell but that does not constitute blocking the Royal Commission's investigations into child abuse by the Catholic church.

 

You are right about the new law and I LIKE IT!

 

The Australian Border Force Act, supported by the ALP and opposed only by the Greens, effectively turns the Department of Immigration into a secret security organisation with police powers. Although the Act seems to be directed at Customs operations, it also seeks to regulate and control access to information about asylum seekers in immigration detention.

 

Under the Act, it is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, for any person working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to reveal to the media or any other person or organisation (the only exceptions being the Immigration Department and other Commonwealth agencies, police, coroners) anything that happens in detention centres like Nauru and Manus Island.

 

I disagree that they are legitimate asylum seekers. People in our official refugee intake are not taken to Nauru or Manus.

 

I note that you ignore the fact that it was a LIE that RAN personnel tortured boat people, but the ABC went ahead and published the story without any checks.

 

And you are dodging my question. The fact that Tony Joyce's murder was covered up 35 years ago has no bearing on what happens today. You are engaged in yet another fallacy, justifying one wrong by citing another.

Wow.

[Parley]

Does everyone know that Australia has recently been internationally recognized as the most generous taker of refugees in the world.

[Harpodom]

Seeing as MARY likes turning immigration officers into an unaccountable paramilitary force, I'm suspecting he really likes the idea of removing the legislation which currently protects the environment, in favour of one that assists the coal and mining industry to dig up massive craters in farming land.

 

What about you @parley?

[Parley]

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/08/were-the-worlds-most-generous-nation-for-refugees-we-take-more-genuine-refugees-than-any-other-count.html

[MARYROSE02]

No I am saying hold the inquiry by all means. Just maintain as neutral as possible umpire. (in this case judge) At least you finally admit to 'something going on in the camps'. We are making progress. Arguments can be made as to what point deep concerns were raised but the point being it got steadily worse under the Lib's. Their reaction alone suggested a lot was not wanted to be in the open. A very poor judgement call by Libs yet again.

 

But I'm not overly concerned about what allegedly goes on in the camps. For a start they are illegal immgrants and they travelled to Australia illegally. I'm more worried about what may or may not go on in Australia. It's typical of the left that they care more about what happens outside Australia.

 

Anyway, I hope these allegations are publicised across the world, anything to discourage more illegal immigrants trying to get here.

[MARYROSE02]

How many times do you need to be told, to read, to realise that "seeking asylum/refuge is not an illegal act"?

 

You can call me wrong as much as you like, but I think you will find that this is fact.

 

Here you are: (again)

 

SHOULD WE CALL ASYLUM SEEKERS ‘ILLEGALS’? > CHECK THE FACTS

 

October 23, 2013 · in Immigration

Who: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has instructed staff to publicly refer to asylum seekers as ‘illegal arrivals’.

The Claim: The people who arrive on boats seeking asylum are doing so illegally.

The Facts: Under the UN Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, it is not illegal to arrive by boat and seek asylum in Australia. The Convention states that everyone has the right to seek asylum in Australia.

Discussion of evidence: A previous fact published in June this year outlined why arriving on boat and seeking asylum is not illegal. This evidence has been republished below in light of the change in government rhetoric surrounding asylum seekers.

Under the UN Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, regardless of their method of arrival.

Article 31 of the UN Convention states that asylum seekers cannot be punished for entering a country without authorisation. It is recognised that refugees do not have to obtain travel documentation or travel through authorised channels because it is not always safe or practical to do so.

The Refugee Council of Australia states that asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws by arriving on boats without formal documentation. In a 2002 Federal Court decision Justice Merkel stated that asylum seekers have a “lawful entitlement” under international and domestic law to seek asylum in Australia.

The use of the term ‘illegal’ when referring to asylum seekers has also been recognised by the Australian Press Council as incorrect. They have warned the press that the use of this term is a breach of journalistic ethics and complaints can be brought against them.

 

You will have to explain it to me more slowly. It's not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, even if it involves paying Indonesian people smugglers, and because it is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, the Indonesian people smugglers are no longer committing an illegal act themselves, so Australia has no legal right to stop those vessels. In fact, Australia has no legal rights whatsover to control its borders.

 

From what you are saying, an asylum seeker could actually hijack a plane and direct it to Australia, and they would STILL be legally entitled to claim asylum and all because Australia has signed the UN Declaration on Refugees, which cancels out all other laws.

 

And why bother with an official refugee intake? Why would any refugee bother trying to get 'official' status?

 

And of course, I noticed that claiming refugee status means that anybody can legally come to Australia. Member of ISIS? The Taliban? Murderer? Rapist? No problem. Just make it to Australia, and claim asylum. How easy is that?

[MARYROSE02]

Asylum seekers - good

 

Chinese workers - bad

 

Please explain why one is good for Australia, whilst the other is a threat because they take Australian jobs?