Asylum policy offensive and illegal: Indonesian MP
Tony is not off to a good start with "Operation Sovereign Borders" (which is a bit of a wanky name really)
A member of the Indonesian parliamentary foreign affairs commission has described the Federal Government's asylum seeker policy as "offensive" and "illegal". story link I would have thought that a bit more consultation with Indo would have been entered into before making such broad sweeping policy announcements. |
09:04am 19/09/13 Permalink
Gotta stop those boats at any cost! Who knows, they might come here and actually try to make their lives better. God forbid that ever happen.
|
09:41am 19/09/13 Permalink
What I think is offensive is that the Indonesian Government allows an entire industry of people smugglers to thrive in their country, and people die as a result.
The Australian government's policies cannot be illegal if they are backed by domestic law. But please continue to report what some Indonesian MP thinks. /insert Gene Wilder |
10:10am 19/09/13 Permalink
we're going to need to put an extra zero on the end of the order quantity number when Australia takes delivery of those shiny new Lockheed Martin JSF to assist in precision scuttling those c***roaches :)
death from above! p.s. anyone want to have a bash in a multi of H.A.W.X. 2? Goliath/Overwatch mission is like practice for the real fire for effect. until you burn down the arcade and graduate to sim level, that is. |
10:46am 19/09/13 Permalink
Yes infi, let's tell a nation of over 200 million with an armed forces greater than ours to F*** off.
|
11:07am 19/09/13 Permalink
Indo wouldn't touch us with allies as powerful as we have.
Also, there are industries in which you cannot squash as long as there is a demand for it, especially in a poor country like Indonesia. |
11:11am 19/09/13 Permalink
The Australian government's policies cannot be illegal if they are backed by domestic law.The article implies that our new policy involves having us on the ground in Indonesia literally bribing people to give up people smugglers...? Doesn't strike me as too hard to believe that that sort of action might be illegal in other countries. The press release and policy about this "Operation" appear to have been removed from Tony Abbott's website; Google have them here and here respectively. infi, I'm sure you can point us in the right direction - I am curious to read more about the policy (the ABC article sort of sucks). |
11:21am 19/09/13 Permalink
Wait a minute are you trying to cheat us again Tone?
|
11:51am 19/09/13 Permalink
Yes infi, let's tell a nation of over 200 million with an armed forces greater than ours to F*** off. Don't be frightened, they can't throw their sticks far enough across the timor sea to hurt you. Our budget for military : $25billion Indonesia : $8billion. they do have a > 10:1 personel ratio though. |
11:57am 19/09/13 Permalink
infi, I'm sure you can point us in the right direction - I am curious to read more about the policy (the ABC article sort of sucks). I said domestic law. So a few points to clarify: If the Australian policies are approved Indonesian law i.e. if Australia negotiates the deal with Indo govt then it cannot be illegal. If the Indos don't agree to it then Australia must operate within the bounds of international law. Secondly, buying boats is a private property transaction. Anyone can buy a boat off anyone. (not that I think that will be a particularly effective policy move.) Thirdly, countries conduct covert spying operations all the time which is part of the standard intelligence practice. Just as Indonesia no doubt conducts covert intelligence in Australia. Finally boats are turned back to the edge of Indonesian international waters. The Australian policy is entirely lawful. I think the most effective element of deterrent is TPVs. |
12:10pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia sends 1000s of boats towards Australia, Australia turns them back. Seems fair to me. If we sent boats to Indonesia and Malaysia they would blow them out of the water.
Yes infi, let's tell a nation of over 200 million with an armed forces greater than ours to F*** off. So you're saying that because they have bigger armed forces than us we should follow their orders? |
12:36pm 19/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Abusive |
12:46pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia sends 1000s of boats towards Australia, Australia turns them back. Really? please tell me you aren't that stupid.. |
12:55pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia is just trying it's usual bully boy tantrum tactics that worked with the previous Labor government. They know the previous government use to fold as soon as they started whipping out terms like "insult" "offensive" and the last resort of "Racist"
It must be a shock to them that Australia has a new government with a backbone that won't fold straight away. Indonesian people smugglers on Indonesian vessels will be sent back. Instead of whinging about it, maybe they should do something about their corrupt officials who allow people smugglers to operate? Theres nothing illegal about it. Australian borders are now under the control of the Australian Government. Bad luck Indonesia, bad luck. Yes infi, let's tell a nation of over 200 million with an armed forces greater than ours to F*** off. They will be told kindly to f*** off. Are you saying Indonesia will conduct military operations against us because the government is sending back their illegal people smuggling boats? |
01:01pm 19/09/13 Permalink
I said domestic law.I meant, where is the actual policy, given that it appears to no longer be available on Abbott's website (has it been removed?). Thirdly, countries conduct covert spying operations all the time which is part of the standard intelligence practice. Just as Indonesia no doubt conducts covert intelligence in Australia.Yes, but you realise such espionage is typically illegal in the countries in which it is carried out in, right? e.g., we can say the policy is "legal" all we want, but if we're carrying out actions on foreign soil, it doesn't matter what we call it (at least, not to the operatives charged carrying it out, because they're the ones at risk of breaking local law). Anyway, I didn't want to get into that discussion without reading the actual policy because the ABC article is so light on details. Never mind, found it: http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/OperationSovereignBorders_Policy.pdf |
01:32pm 19/09/13 Permalink
We will have to wait until the laws pass parliament or we otherwise find out how thepolicy will be actually implemented.
|
01:45pm 19/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Disruptive |
02:47pm 19/09/13 Permalink
I said domestic law. So a few points to clarify: If the Australian policies are approved Indonesian law i.e. if Australia negotiates the deal with Indo govt then it cannot be illegal. If the Indos don't agree to it then Australia must operate within the bounds of international law.Secondly, buying boats is a private property transaction. Anyone can buy a boat off anyone. (not that I think that will be a particularly effective policy move.)Thirdly, countries conduct covert spying operations all the time which is part of the standard intelligence practice. Just as Indonesia no doubt conducts covert intelligence in Australia. Finally boats are turned back to the edge of Indonesian international waters.The Australian policy is entirely lawful. I think the most effective element of deterrent is TPVs. I'm not sure what you mean by "international law", but any person in Indonesia is bound to act according with Indonesian law. Its legality in Australia is irrelevant. Governments are able to regulate private transactions; Indonesia would be within its power to make it illegal for foreign governments to enter into contracts for the purchase of boats. Turning back boats at the edge of Indonesian waters is fine - then they just turn around and head to Australia again. The Australian Navy can't force them to return to an Indonesian port, and if they sink the boat, the Australian Navy (being the closest vessels) will need to render assistance and transport anyone who doesn't drown to Australia. Basically, the premise of this thread is that the Abbot government has already pissed off Indonesia, and what you are saying doesn't rebut that at all. Your only possible argument is that we don't care if we piss off Indonesia's government, but I don't believe anyone could hold that view. We need their cooperation on international matters far more than they need us. it isn't about military actions, it is about trade, regional development, shipping lanes, foreign investment etc. |
02:54pm 19/09/13 Permalink
implementation commences with an iron fist.
|
03:05pm 19/09/13 Permalink
and people die as a result. Ah the ol' curiously fast morphing of the argument. http://i.imgur.com/W2l8lsZ.jpg |
03:07pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia is just trying it's usual bully boy tantrum tacticsHow long have you been so stupid. that worked with the previous Labor government. They know the previous government use to fold as soon as they started whipping out terms like "insult" "offensive" and the last resort of "Racist"It must be a shock to them that Australia has a new government with a backbone that won't fold straight away.Indonesian people smugglers on Indonesian vessels will be sent back.haha, such a laugh a minute you are. Instead of whinging about it, maybe they should do something about their corrupt officials who allow people smugglers to operate? Bad luck Indonesia, bad luck.They will be told kindly to f*** off. Are you saying Indonesia will conduct military operations against us because the government is sending back their illegal people smuggling boats?Gee, critical thinking sure is lacking here. |
03:10pm 19/09/13 Permalink
why is it deeply offensive to return indonesian flagged boats crewed by indonesians, back to indonesia ?
maybe because a heap of iranians paid people smugglers $20000+ each ? i'd be deeply offended if my lucrative business model became redundant too. |
04:26pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Governments are able to regulate private transactions; Indonesia would be within its power to make it illegal for foreign governments to enter into contracts for the purchase of boats. Australia could send agents over to Indonesia who look like tourists as far as the Indo government is concerned. Australia could pay Indo based agents to do the same thing. There would be nothing the Indo govt can do about it except cancel their visa. it is not an offence to buy a boat. They are for all intents private individuals buying a boat for their own pleasure. Turning back boats at the edge of Indonesian waters is fine - then they just turn around and head to Australia again. The Australian Navy can't force them to return to an Indonesian port, and if they sink the boat, the Australian Navy (being the closest vessels) will need to render assistance and transport anyone who doesn't drown to Australia. Indo people smugglers rarely pack enough fuel to make the trip twice. Basically, the premise of this thread is that the Abbot government has already pissed off Indonesia, and what you are saying doesn't rebut that at all. And Indo's tacit permission of a people smuggling industry has pissed of Australia, so each country is entitled to take what measures are necessary to protect their borders and save lives. Yes, but you realise such espionage is typically illegal in the countries in which it is carried out in, right?inteliigence gathering is one thing, espionage is something completely different. as is boat buying. I am sure the agents Indo no doubt has in Australia are also acting illegally too. But first the country's govt has to be AWARE of it. Espionage involves the gathering of secret information.. Australian agents would simply be scoping out people smuggling activities which is not secret. And Indo immigration can also refuse them a visa, or the agents could seek asylum... oh wait.... |
04:57pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Why is Iggy Pop wearing an Australian flag?
How the f*** can a grown adult pretend that boat buying is a sensible and meaningful policy? It honestly sounds like something old Pauline Hanson would come up with. All that would do is boost the boat building industry in Indonesia and I bet we run out of money before these rich people smugglers do. Better off simply buying off corrupt officials to do their actual jobs instead. Indo people smugglers rarely pack enough fuel to make the trip twice.Why would they need to make the trip twice? The best the Australian Navy might do is tow the boat which would only be legal in Australian waters, illegal in international waters and a s*** storm if they did it in Indonesian waters. Turning back boats might sound like a good slogan but it's pretty much impossible to pull off legally and more or less just going to end up another international disaster. All the smugglers have to do is sink the boat and the Navy has no choice but to rescue them and you can bet Indonesia won't be taking them back. The only thing needed to stop the boats is more or less what Labor already had on the table and that is if you come here by boat you will never be settled in Australia. That takes away the whole reason for making the trip in the first place. |
05:26pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Crackerjack foreign policy there, how long till the next election again?
|
05:53pm 19/09/13 Permalink
If the Australian policies are approved Indonesian law i.e. if Australia negotiates the deal with Indo govt then it cannot be illegal. If the Indos don't agree to it then Australia must operate within the bounds of international law. Can you explain this a little bit more please. A treaty doesn't guarantee legality in either country. Don't want to argue from authority but I am studying this exact field at law school right now. |
06:24pm 19/09/13 Permalink
why is it deeply offensive to return indonesian flagged boats crewed by indonesians, back to indonesia ? Because Indonesians are scared they might have to take them in and that would ruin their homogeneous society. You can see why they are so desperate to see them on their way to Australia. lol @ the left wingers coming out with lines like "you're dumb" "you're stupid" without providing any logical rebuttal. No, that's just Fpot and Some Fat Bastard who do that when they are stumped. |
06:29pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Because Indonesians are scared they might have to take them in and that would ruin their homogeneous society. You can see why they are so desperate to see them on their way to Australia. Yes an archipelago of over 3000 islands is worried about strong cultural consistency. |
06:31pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Can you explain this a little bit more please. A treaty doesn't guarantee legality in either country. Don't want to argue from authority but I am studying this exact field at law school right now. The AFP already have resources in Indonesia combating people smuggling. These were cut by the Labor government but they are still there. i expect that the AFP are operating under Indonesian authority. So Indo to some degree are currently cooperating with Australia. The current Aus government may seek further Indonesian authority and cooperation, otherwise they may just use the means generally available within the bounds of international law. |
06:55pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Well I can tell you right now that the brute fact of agents on the ground has exactly zero to do with legality.
The executive doing something and its constitutional/legislated authority to actually do it are obviously distinct questions. But I would hazard a guess that the buying of the boats is not the thrust of the legality claim. It would probably be more focused on detention with out charge or review, which is a serious issue for Australia in the international law field. In fact being signatories to the ICCPR and doing what we do with Refugees, are more or less not possible to reconcile. And I would point out at this stage, that Australia has accepted at second optional protocol hearings that our detention policy needs improvement. I would further add to this, that the second optional protocol tribunal has no fact finding authority, thus we must simply take the governments reports of non-abuse at their word, in a legal system whose principle enforcement mechanism is shame. It is a dirtbag move by Indonesia no doubt, them not being signatories to the ICCPR. But we assumed the responsibilities under the convention. |
07:09pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Takin' er jeerrrbs etc.
lol @ the left wingers coming out with lines like "you're dumb" "you're stupid" without providing any logical rebuttal. There weren't any lines, it was more of an enquiry. Really? please tell me you aren't that stupid.. Was what he asked/said. And I'd be asking the same thing if I didn't know you. Poe's Law. When somebody posts comments that seem like they're ripped from an average caller on an Alan Jones talkback show - simplistic commentary that ignores virtually all of the variables that go into play on any given issue, in favour of horses*** rhetoric and assertions that make it seem as if the person commenting is grossly uneducated and hasn't even a rudimentary idea of what they're talking about - it poses two different scenarios: A. The person is parodying an idiot. or B. The person is an idiot. In the second case, it's not fair to expect an intelligent individual to waste time rebutting stupid comments made by stupid people. If you want to engage somebody in a debate, make some intelligent or at least valid points. Indonesia sends 1000s of boats towards Australia, Australia turns them back. No they don't. Seems fair to me. If we sent boats to Indonesia and Malaysia they would blow them out of the water. No they wouldn't. |
09:21pm 19/09/13 Permalink
^ well said. Where have you been hiding?
|
09:44pm 19/09/13 Permalink
09:54pm 19/09/13 Permalink
it is not an offence to buy a boat. They are for all intents private individuals buying a boat for their own pleasure.Yes, but THEY CAN MAKE IT AN OFFENCE FOR AUSTRALIANS TO BUY BOATS, or do WHATEVER THEY WANT because they WRITE THEIR OWN LAWS and they can make ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN INDONESIA that they feel like. |
11:01pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Then no doubt Indonesian nationals would be recruited to buy the boats. The Indos would be powerless to stop it. (not that I endorse that particular policy.) there is no law they could make. They can't even enforce their existing people smuggling laws.
|
11:12pm 19/09/13 Permalink
I like the bit where the policy has been removed, and we apparently now need to wait to find out what the brand new Government is going to do about "stopping the boats", the issue they've literally been campaigning for years on... day one he said, wasn't it? I'm counting, tone!
What was it you f*****s banged on about for ~6 years. "Policy on the run" I think it was called? |
11:20pm 19/09/13 Permalink
It's all there on the website:
http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/OperationSovereignBorders_Policy.pdf http://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies But I would hazard a guess that the buying of the boats is not the thrust of the legality claim. I think the Indo MP is clearly directing his comments to the way the some of the Abbott govt's policies are perceived to interfere with Indonesian sovereignty. Indo can't cast stones about Australian detention policy because Indo don't even offer asylum. |
11:26pm 19/09/13 Permalink
What I think is offensive is that the Indonesian Government allows an entire industry of people smugglers to thrive in their country Oh come off it infi, that's just naive. Indonesia has bigger problems than trying to stop people from getting a better life. and so do we. Hell, according to you it's not like it's their skilled workers that are flooding onto our shores so their economy sure wouldn't suffer from it right? |
11:29pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia has bigger problems than trying to stop people from getting a better life. and so do we. So you don't think Indo should be interested in eliminating people smuggling? Hmmm. according to you it's not like it's their skilled workers that are flooding onto our shores so their economy sure wouldn't suffer from it right? Indo is simply a conduit for economic migrants. But those migrants are dropping off phat stax of loot with Indo people smugglers before they flee for their lives from "persecution". TPVs will fix that and at a fraction of the cost of permanently storing asylum seekers overseas. |
11:37pm 19/09/13 Permalink
I never said they shouldn't be, don't put words in my mouth. But when a third of your f*****g population is around and below the poverty line, yes infi you have bigger economic problems.
|
11:44pm 19/09/13 Permalink
So what exactly does "Indonesia has bigger problems than trying to stop people from getting a better life." mean? Can you please expand on how that statement should manifest in their government's policy?
|
11:48pm 19/09/13 Permalink
Their governments policy on the issue is clear, human trafficking and smuggling is illegal and ranges from 5-15 years for not only the smugglers but also corrupt officials, benign bystanders and yes even the illegal activities from asylum seekers themselves. If anything I disagree on the last point and think true asylum seekers should not be persecuted for trying everything possible to escape whatever conditions they find themselves in, which is exactly what we do in Aus (see; grant asylum).
Their incapability towards enforcing these laws is the problem, not their policy. and why can you blame them when you have bigger problems to finance, like i don't know, clothing and feeding your own damn populace? Australia is the clusterf*** of policy. We are failing to meet our international human rights obligations and need to increase the amount of asylum seekers we accept. To discourage boats is futile, to truly 'stop the boats' you need ongoing, joint Indo-Aus operations aimed at the source (covert, legal and financial investigations into upper levels), not 'policies' aimed at the symptoms (BOATZ) and fear-campaigns can f*** right off. Illegal immigrants already living in Aus are numbers of magnitudes more numerous and impactful to our society and economy anyway, and it's retarded how much attention boat people are getting in comparison. |
12:10am 20/09/13 Permalink
I vaguely remember reading something about how asylum seekers in Brazil are entitled to the same social services as ordinary Brazilian citizens. Granted, Brazil wouldn't exactly be the go-to for most people looking to flee their respective s***holes, but it's a nice thought.
Meanwhile, for some inexplicable reason, a few boats coming from Indonesia is this massive deal that the media goes bats*** over, and everybody has a strong opinion on the subject. I really don't see why statistically insignificant numbers of illegal immigrants coming here via boat (compared to the numbers already here after skipping out on visas etc), is an issue that was paraded around as a voting point in a national election. It's a sad indictment of both our politics, and our social conscience, that it's gotten to this point. Just f*****g un-Australian is what it is. ^ well said. Where have you been hiding? GameArena :/ |
12:16am 20/09/13 Permalink
I really don't see why statistically insignificant numbers of illegal immigrants coming here via boat (compared to the numbers already here after skipping out on visas etc), is an issue that was paraded around as a voting point in a national election. It's a sad indictment of both our politics, and our social conscience, that it's gotten to this point. Just f*****g un-Australian is what it is. QFT /thread |
12:22am 20/09/13 Permalink
Surely this buying of the boats is almost as bad as the pink batts scheme.
|
01:23am 20/09/13 Permalink
I really don't see why statistically insignificant numbers of illegal immigrants coming here via boat (compared to the numbers already here after skipping out on visas etc), is an issue that was paraded around as a voting point in a national election. It's a sad indictment of both our politics, and our social conscience, that it's gotten to this point. Just f*****g un-Australian is what it is. +1 From the outside looking in, it's shocking and reprehensible on all accounts. |
01:52am 20/09/13 Permalink
we are part of the UN and we have an obligation to help refugees
The libs dont see it that way atm because it was an election deal. But u can bet the media (70% or more of) will not be going "bats***" over any more boats now the liberals are in - well not the majority of the mainstream press its what the murdoch press wanted: to report on "swamped by boat stories" simply to destroy labour by appealing to the uneducated easily stirred up "dont care about facts" part of australia to "get that mob out" and now we have the liberals we wont see the 70% of mainstream press that murdoch control making a deal of any boat arrivals after all the liberals want to put the navy in charge, with some military guy leading "stop the boat operations" so they can blanket wipe the media with "u can no longer report on this as its an operational military matter and we cant have that talked about" stay tuned |
04:33am 20/09/13 Permalink
Then no doubt Indonesian nationals would be recruited to buy the boats. The Indos would be powerless to stop it. (not that I endorse that particular policy.) there is no law they could make. They can't even enforce their existing people smuggling laws.OK! Now we're on the same page - as long as we both now agree that your outlandish and ridiculous statement "The Australian government's policies cannot be illegal if they are backed by domestic law" is outlandish and ridiculous simply by the rules of logic I really don't see why statistically insignificant numbers of illegal immigrants coming here via boat (compared to the numbers already here after skipping out on visas etc), is an issue that was paraded around as a voting point in a national election. It's a sad indictment of both our politics, and our social conscience, that it's gotten to this point. Just f*****g un-Australian is what it is.I agree; I think we should be making it easier for people to get here legitimately. The War on Boats is as big a waste of time as the War on Drugs. |
09:19am 20/09/13 Permalink
I like the bit where the policy has been removed. It hasn't been removed. Their policy is clear. Everyone knows what operation sovereign borders is. If you don't, you are choosing not to know. Their incapability towards enforcing these laws is the problem, not their policy. and why can you blame them when you have bigger problems to finance, like i don't know, clothing and feeding your own damn populace? It's well recorded that the police, local government and people in the army are involved in the people smuggling too. The corruption goes to the top levels. If the Indonesian government wanted to, they could stop it. But why would they? They get phat loot from the Australian government to pretend to be against it such as brand new patrol boats etc. Surely this buying of the boats is almost as bad as the pink batts scheme. Lets wait and see if anyone dies from fire first before we make a statement like that. its what the murdoch press wanted: to report on "swamped by boat stories" simply to destroy labour by appealing to the uneducated easily stirred up "dont care about facts" part of australia to "get that mob out" and now we have the liberals we wont see the 70% of mainstream press that murdoch control making a deal of any boat arrivals Ah yes! Everything is the "Murdoch Medias" fault! I never thought a couple of newspapers could brainwash an entire population into voting a particular way! Is a newspaper some sort of brainwashing device that the second you look at the front of it, you are instantly brainwashed? This butthurt from Labor supporters where they claim everything under the sun is the "Murdoch Medias" fault needs to stop. It's Labors fault that they got kicked out and it's Labors fault that their border protection policy stinks. I agree; I think we should be making it easier for people to get here legitimately. The War on Boats is as big a waste of time as the War on Drugs. It is relatively easy to come to Australia legitimately, but it will never be a free for all where you can rock up as an unskilled economic migrant and be given permenent residency. If that was the case we would be flooded with millions of migrants. The government maintains a SKILLED migrant program for a reason. The issue isn't immigration, the issue is economic migrants pretending to be refugees coming here illegally and not through the proper processes. Fun fact: Under the howard government, the refugee intake was INCREASED while the pacific solution stopped queue jumpers and bogus refugees from coming to Australia. |
10:44am 20/09/13 Permalink
OK! Now we're on the same page - as long as we both now agree that your outlandish and ridiculous statement "The Australian government's policies cannot be illegal if they are backed by domestic law" is outlandish and ridiculous simply by the rules of logic The statement I made is 100% true. If (and I said "IF") the Indonesian government passes a law making certain conduct by Australian officials conducting operations on Indoenesia soil legal then it is ipso facto legal. There is nothing outlandish about that statement at all - it is in fact procedural so i don't know why you would describe ti as such. Trog, you sound foolish using those words to describe the normal way countries go about their bilateral relations. As I stated earlier, the Australian government already has AFP forces in Indonesia so we know that through dioplomacy the countries already cooperate to a certain degree and Abbott is merely seeking to enhance that arrangement. IF he does not achieve further agreement from Indoesian lawmakers then Abbott would have to revert to generally accepted positions at international law. One thing I can say definitively: What one Indonesian MP (or any MP for that matter) says about the legality of a matter has no relevance whatsoever to Indo/Australian bilateral relations. |
12:06pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Ah yes! Everything is the "Murdoch Medias" fault! I never thought a couple of newspapers could brainwash an entire population into voting a particular way! I dunno, I guess we'll never know how much impact their negative campaign had on the voters, but the fact that media owned by Murdoch was almost entirely anti-Labor is pretty clear. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3844761.htm |
12:22pm 20/09/13 Permalink
I dunno, I guess we'll never know how much impact their negative campaign had on the voters, but the fact that media owned by Murdoch was almost entirely anti-Labor is pretty clear.http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3844761.htm Newspapers are a dying media. It's the most ridiculous fallacy to suggest that newspapers swung voters because newspapers simply reported Labors stuff ups etc. If Labor wasn't making mistakes, there wouldn't be anything to report. People are just in denial that Labor was a terrible government so they put themselves into a grieving stage where they actually convince themselves a newspaper is some sort of hi-tech brainwashing device and the moment someone gets a glimpse of the front page they instantly become brainwashed. Not everything is a "Murdoch Media" conspiracy. Rupert Murdoch isn't sitting in his office dictating everything his newspapers,tv stations etc around the world are reporting. |
12:58pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Ah yes! Everything is the "Murdoch Medias" fault! I never thought a couple of newspapers could brainwash an entire population into voting a particular way! When the media is constantly saying one thing and almost no-one is saying the other, then yes. It CAN sway opinion. That's why there's stuff like war-time propoganda etc. If you shout something loud enough, often enough and at enough people, eventually they'll start to believe it. Especially with the whole "Oh, it's in the news, it must be true" mindset a lot of people have. We're still remembering a day when journalists actually investigated instead of copy-pasta from reddit. |
01:01pm 20/09/13 Permalink
If Labor wasn't making mistakes, there wouldn't be anything to report.Granted, labor made mistakes, but the ones reported by murduch were more a fabrication than anything else. Labor did lose this election though, it wasn't the murdoch empires sole doing. The people are not going to be happy about instability in the leadership. the pacific solution stopped queue jumpers and bogus refugees from coming to Australia. Not really. reduced? perhaps, but stopped? no. |
01:36pm 20/09/13 Permalink
The statement I made is 100% true. If (and I said "IF") the Indonesian government passes a law making certain conduct by Australian officials conducting operations on Indoenesia soil legal then it is ipso facto legal.what the f*****g f***? I can't believe if you're genuinely not understanding what I'm saying or if you're intentionally twisting my buttons. You just completely rewrote what I said to change the meaning to come up with a true statement that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am saying. If, and note I said IF, Tony Abbot decides to make us all bagels with Vegemite for breakfast, then I think we'll all be pretty happy with something toasty and yummy in our bellies. As I stated earlier, the Australian government already has AFP forces in Indonesia so we know that through dioplomacy the countries already cooperate to a certain degree and Abbott is merely seeking to enhance that arrangement. IF he does not achieve further agreement from Indoesian lawmakers then Abbott would have to revert to generally accepted positions at international law.yes, it's almost like we can't just pass any old laws we want and have them be applicable all over the world, or something edit: I don't give a s*** about "stop the boats", or (for what it's worth) what the Indonesian government says about anything we do. |
01:50pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Infi Indonesia is not a conduit for economic migrants. Virtually all of the people who come by boat turn out to be legit refugees, as in above 90%
The reason they come to us, is that we are about the only country between here and Afghanistan, where most come from, That actually has obligations to them. Please resist the urge to spout blatant mis-information. Also murchdoch/obisity or what ever you are calling yourself now. The UN doesn't maintain a queue. There is literally no queue to jump. The increase of refugees taken was because we went and flew them here. If you are an actual refugee Australia is anything but easy to get to. |
02:26pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Infi Indonesia is not a conduit for economic migrants. Virtually all of the people who come by boat turn out to be legit refugees, as in above 90% We have heard loads of evidence that the system is faulty and a lot of economic migrants get through. 2,000's Sri Lankins have already been sent back. The reason they come to us, is that we are about the only country between here and Afghanistan, where most come from, That actually has obligations to them. Did you even research this before saying it? Or are you like most people who say things that "sound" right? Afghanistan is surrounded by countries that have signed the refugee convention and have direct neighbors who have signed it. Saying we are the only ones close enough is absolute bulls***. Check out a map of the world. Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia, China, Turkey, Europe. We aren't even that close to them, there's other western nations even closer. If they were in so much danger and were THAT desperate, they would simply go to their neighboring safe countries, but by skipping all these closer countries and getting on a plane to Indonesia so they can boat into Australia it proves they are just out for economic purposes. |
03:00pm 20/09/13 Permalink
I want to see that evidence of massive amounts of migrant workers getting through the system. BTW massive means more than 30% in my books.
|
03:38pm 20/09/13 Permalink
It's the most ridiculous fallacy to suggest that newspapers swung voters because newspapers simply reported Labors stuff ups etc. If Labor wasn't making mistakes, there wouldn't be anything to report. You are very naive if you think newspapers can't change or shape peoples opinions. In fact the second part of your statement most likely supports the fact that they did just that by reporting Labours flaws. And don't forget they carry their campaigns over to all forms of media. Irrespective of ownership, Murdoch, Packer, Stokes, etc, they still have a big influence on people. |
03:49pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Did you even research this before saying it? Or are you like most people who say things that "sound" right? Afghanistan is surrounded by countries that have signed the refugee convention and have direct neighbors who have signed it. Saying we are the only ones close enough is absolute bulls***. Check out a map of the world.Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia, China, Turkey, Europe. We aren't even that close to them, there's other western nations even closer.If they were in so much danger and were THAT desperate, they would simply go to their neighboring safe countries, but by skipping all these closer countries and getting on a plane to Indonesia so they can boat into Australia it proves they are just out for economic purposes. I believe your argument is irrelevant. As per: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php# A refugee is someone who has a well founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It makes no difference whether a refugee is rich or poor – the point is that they are at risk of, or have experienced, persecution. Many refugees who come to Australia are educated middle-class people, whose education, profession or political opinions have drawn them to the attention of the authorities and resulted in their persecution. Therefore irrespective of their country of origin or neighboring countries they have a right to seek asylum from Australia. Also irrespective of how much money they have they still have a right to seek asylum. I would respect you more if you just come out and say it: you hate people that are Other. |
03:49pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Iran, Turkey, Europe? Yeah Iran is a refugee producing nation expecting them to process refugees is a little silly.
So your asking people fleeing a war zone to go through two more war zones so they can try and have their claim processed with Turkey? or Russia? take a look at a map buddy expecting them to flee through Siberia is f*****g absurd. Here is the list of countries between us and Afghanistan: Pakistan India Nepal Burma Bangladesh Thailand Malaysia Indonesia None of them have signed the Convention on Refugees. Here is the list to be sure. It doesn't sound right, it is right that we are the only country between here and there with obligations. the ICCPR is the list of human rights we have sworn to uphold and when it comes to refugees have a terrible record on, and therefore our policies don't conform with our treaty obligations, hence there is an issue with legality surrounding our policy settings. The UNHCR is the source of our resettlement obligations. We have heard loads of evidence that the system is faulty and a lot of economic migrants get through. 2,000's Sri Lankins have already been sent back. You wanna get all evidence based. Was this when Bob Carr said that it was safe to send people back to Sri Lanka and then retracted the statement like a week later. |
03:55pm 20/09/13 Permalink
This took me way too long to find. There is something called the Cobra effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect).
The British government was concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi.The government therefore offered a bounty for every dead cobra. ..... Eventually, however, enterprising persons began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, the reward program was scrapped, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worseThis is exactly what will happen when Australia starts buying fishermen boats. People will start building terrible boats just to profit, probably resulting in the government stopping the program and then resulting in too many boats forcing the fishermen to resort to illegal smuggling. Also referred to as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive |
04:13pm 20/09/13 Permalink
greazy, that is awesome - I didn't know about that one. That sort of thing is really common (especially with government subsidies/programmes/etc). Basically the same thing as the law of unintended consequences. As soon as people figure out how to game the system it needs to be changed.
Obviously, anyone that has ever played a video game will know about these - small exploits that give people advantage. And the solution is easy in a game - you just release a patch. I don't have a problem with them as long as they're clearly intended as SHORT TERM measures to see how they work, and as soon as people figure out how to game them they're immediately scrapped. I can certainly believe that even if they run for a short time, they might have enough impact over the long term because it will change institutionalised behaviours. |
04:19pm 20/09/13 Permalink
If they were in so much danger and were THAT desperate, they would simply go to their neighboring safe countries, but by skipping all these closer countries and getting on a plane to Indonesia so they can boat into Australia it proves they are just out for economic purposes.Oh yeh, like all those Syrians that are flooding into Australia and causing all that peak hour traffic? Man, those guys drive me nuts for not going somewhere closer and more convenient!@!@# Newsflash - the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of refugees don't come to Australia - they walk across borders with whatever they can carry to some other crappy country that then has to deal with them. This in Turkey is one story I saw recently about the Syrian crisis. Oh yeh, and apparently there's half a million in Jordan. We got 99 problems - but boats ain't one. |
04:27pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Iran, Turkey, Europe? Yeah Iran is a refugee producing nation expecting them to process refugees is a little silly Well the government has been clamping down on Iranians too because there's no reason mass amounts of Iranians should be fleeing Iran. Iran hasn't got any conflict, there's no massive poverty. Ok, a small amount have crossed the government, but it wouldn't be in the 1000's. So your asking people fleeing a war zone to go through two more war zones so they can try and have their claim processed with Turkey? or Russia? take a look at a map buddy expecting them to flee through Siberia is f*****g absurd. LOL. > Says take a look at a map > Doesn't take a look at it himself. Not sure what two "warzones" you are talking about, but im guessing 1 is Syria? You don't need to go through Syria to get to Russia or Turkey and no you don't have to enter Russia through Siberia. Please look at a map. Also why do they have to go by land? These so called "refugees" fly to Indonesian then boat it to Australia. Why can't they fly to Turkey? Why can't they fly into Russia? or any of the other countries who have signed the convention that are near by.
That's even MORE of a reason to go to countries directly neighboring them or 1 country over. They ignore all these neighboring countries who are signed to the convention, pass over all these ones that aren't and then finally land in Indonesia to which they then boat to Australia. This speaks volumes of their real agenda. I don't know why you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and why you don't accept that these so called "refugees" purposely ignore all these countries(including Europe) that are much closer than Australia. You wanna get all evidence based. Was this when Bob Carr said that it was safe to send people back to Sri Lanka and then retracted the statement like a week later. Even Bob Carr acknowledges the growing bogus asylum seeker problem. Senator Carr's warning comes as a new breed of asylum seekers - not linked to conflict zones - is heading to Australia. "It really is," he said. "We've got a capacity to turn Australians xenophobic against immigration because of the mounting numbers and the fact that - yes I will insist on this - we're getting many advise that it is economic pressure (and) economic aspirations (driving the arrivals)." http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/foreign-affairs-minister-bob-carr-warns-of-new-breed-of-asylum-seeker-driven-by-economic-factors/story-fnihsrf2-1226679860563 Senator Carr says he believes many of the people paying people-smugglers to come to Australia are economic migrants rather than genuine refugees fleeing persecution. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/06/27/concerns-over-carrs-comments-tougher-asylum-policy I'm just glad we now have a capable government that will stop these boats and bogus asylum seekers and will take more legitimate ones on TPV's. Oh yeh, like all those Syrians that are flooding into Australia and causing all that peak hour traffic? Man, those guys drive me nuts for not going somewhere closer and more convenient!@!@# It's good you mentioned Syrians because that is a prime example. There are barely any Syrians coming to Australia via boat which is strange because they would have an undoubted case for asylum, yet they aren't coming but instead going into safe neighboring countries while we have Iranians and Sri Lankins who have no conflict currently going on in their countries coming to Australia and bypassing neighboring safe countries. Strange isn't it? |
05:01pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Yeah what part of Iran is a refugee producing nation are you having trouble with. Getting to Russia is laughable from Afghanistan. It is just desert and ice to the north, and far western china isn't quite like Beijing.
Europe isn't a country for the record, and it isn't that much closer than Australia. Its about half way between us and western Europe. More over European countries and China already deal with refugees. Loads of them. The countries they are surrounded by as you put it either produce refugees or aren't signatories to the convention. The route to Australia by contrast is comparatively well populated and easier to move through by land. They aren't flying around looking for their country of choice. Bob Carr couldn't produce any evidence to support his statements. you can see it here And as far as Sri Lankan refugees go there is literally no where but Australia for them to go to. |
05:21pm 20/09/13 Permalink
whilst the geopolitical lessons are interesting I'd like to know what actual personal beliefs and reasons sheerfatmediapossummurdochdoor has for his/her anti refugee stance.
and to make my position clear for you - i personally don't have any issues with us taking in refugees, of any race, religion, creed, or colour. I believe we are large enough and can support them sufficiently, and the overwhelming majority become productive members of society. so why do you actually oppose them? please try and spare us the political frothing and just give your own reasons. |
05:58pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Australia should stop worrying about what other countries think. America didn't and look at how powerful and rich it is.
Australia could always stop paying huge amounts of aid to indonesia, At the end of the day they need us more than we need them. |
06:18pm 20/09/13 Permalink
I'd like to know what actual personal beliefs and reasons sheerfatmediapossummurdochdoor has for his/her anti refugee stance. I'm not anti-refugee at all. and to make my position clear for you - i personally don't have any issues with us taking in refugees, of any race, religion, creed, or colour. i personally don't have any issues with us taking in refugees, of any race, religion, creed, or colour either. To expand further on those two short answers to your quotes - I don't have a problem with refugees in general, but i DO have a problem with 1. Refugees who illegally cross our border to jump the queue instead of going through the proper channels which the majority of refugees do, thus leaving a lot of other refugees who have done the right thing to linger longer in refugee camps. 2. Bogus refugees who use conflicts(and sometimes no conflicts ie Iranians, Sri Lankins) as an opportunity to migrate to Australia for economic purposes I think you will find this is what a lot of Australians have a problem with too, but a lot of people such as yourself think we are just "anti-refugee" in general which leads to screams of "racist, bigot" blah blah. The fact is Australians don't like cheats and they don't like having the border and immigration out of the governments control. Under John Howard, Australia' total refugee intake increased significantly without a single objection or any kind of objection from the Australian public. As long as legitimate refugees are coming through the proper processes, no one has a problem. |
07:12pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Farkin queue jumping carnts. Come here by the proper channels ya bastards hurrr durrr etc.
|
08:43pm 20/09/13 Permalink
I am having a hard time not abusing you. I am assuming you are just ignorant, therefore please read below for facts with sources.
1. As per: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. Applying for protection onshore is not a means of “jumping the queue” or bypassing the “proper” process of applying for protection. In fact, applying onshore is the standard procedure for seeking protection. There is no reason why Australia should be exempt from receiving and processing onshore asylum claims while expecting other nations to fulfil this responsibility. 2. In regards to refugee status: it is the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that makes the determination. In most western countries, governments have set up structures, either administrative or judicial, for examining claims Read more here on how Australia assess refugees. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/rhp-on.php# I sincerely believe you are anti-refugee. Because firstly you do not even know simple facts (no such thing as a queue jumper), secondly you assume a large proportion of refugees are incorrectly assessed and are granted visas. Thirdly you provide no sources to your widely speculated facts (i.e No refugee intake did not significantly increase under john howard) and lastly if you truly did not mind refugees coming into Australia you would gladly accept the system has faults, that a small number of incorrectly assessed refugees will inadvertently enter the country and you would support further increasing humanitarian visas. You simply choose to hide behind the old cliche "im not racist, I just don't want cheats coming into this country". By the way, I would like to point out that between 2011 and 2012 the number of NZ's without a visa that migrated to Australia was THREE times the number of humanitarian immigrants. P.S I like how you are ignoring my posts. |
08:54pm 20/09/13 Permalink
Unfortunately it's not the way average Aussies i.e. Taxpayers generally see it. I love the irony of the intelligentsia defining what "unAustralian" attitude or behavior should or shouldn't be. Aussies like the "fair go" which means if you try to do things the right way, then you should not be harshly penalized. Aussies want to be charitable to people who are genuinely at risk.
"Refugees" who are in no immediate danger to their life and pay people smugglers tens of thousands of dollars to skip through several countries to get to their country of CHOICE don't fit the concept of "fair go". They are gaming the system. |
02:05pm 21/09/13 Permalink
90.5% of people who arrive by boat are genuine refugees. You are objectively and provably wrong when you claim they aren't. Unless you want to refuse 90.5% of people to cut out the 9.5% who aren't of course.
Source, search for '90.5'. |
02:32pm 21/09/13 Permalink
That ain't the way Aussies see it. Politics is all about perception.
|
02:57pm 21/09/13 Permalink
Its not the elite deciding whats Australian or not.
Its the brute fact that we signed up to the UNHCR in a region that has very little legitimate engagement with the protocol. We assumed the responsibilities. What pisses me off most about people who steadfastly refuse to accept that we owe people is that the cling to ridiculous falsehoods and truck them out again and again and again. That is the third time you, and f*** knows how many times sheers watisface have said they are looking for their country of choice. Its not true and and outright false. If you draw a straight line between us and Afghanistan we are literally the first country you come across who has signed up to the UNHCR. They aren't shoppin around we are the only shop. |
03:01pm 21/09/13 Permalink
I am aware of that, the point is that people who see it that way are objectively wrong. There are no ifs or buts about it.
The way to fix that is by educating people. The problem with that is a lot of people don't want to be educated. I really have no idea why this is. When you are objectively wrong, and the facts are right there in front of you proving so, why do you continue to be wrong? Don't you want to be right? Isn't it preferable to be informed rather than misinformed? This is why accusations of racism and bigotry surface because it is the only logical explanation for that sort of behaviour. |
03:05pm 21/09/13 Permalink
If you draw a straight line between us and Afghanistan we are literally the first country you come across who has signed up to the UNHCR.They aren't shoppin around we are the only shop. But i'v already proved that wrong. Afghanistan is SURROUNDED by neighboring safe countries who have signed the refugee convention. The fact that they ignore all these countries and then fly to Indonesia so they can get on a boat to Australia proves they are shopping around. It would be like walking down your local shopping strip, skipping 10 pizza shops all in a row and then getting into your car to travel 20 minute down the road for pizza saying "oh it's my only option" Why aren't Syrians flying to Indonesia and getting on boats to Australia? They are in real danger and are going to the next safe neighbouring country, yet Iranians are apparently in so much danger that their only option is to fly to Indonesia, pay people smugglers to smuggle them to Australia. It's a concept that just doesn't work out..... |
03:06pm 21/09/13 Permalink
No you haven't I gave a list of countries and the UN record of signatories. Pretty simple.
Just because a country isn't at war doesn't mean its not producing refugees or suitable for resettlement of a group. For example we accept refugees from PNG and its not at war. The majority of people leaving Afghanistan are Haraza and can't be resettled effectively in the region. Syrians aren't coming because they happen to be beside to signatories to refugee convention. I might add that Jordan's efforts in this area should be a source of shame for Australia. You have no f*****g idea what your talking about, and every single factual assertion you have made has been shot down. |
03:13pm 21/09/13 Permalink
If you draw a straight line between us and Afghanistan we are literally the first country you come across who has signed up to the UNHCR.Well there's this fugees under UNHCR mandateAs someone has already mentioned, the vast majority of refugees do seek asylum in neighbouring countries. Australia only receives a small amount. Statistically insignificant as cherocha mentioned. So when people ask why don't they just go to neighbouring countries, the answer is that the majority do, and that you're objectively wrong for suggesting otherwise. It is also wrong to suggest that refugees are only poor people in countries ravaged by war. It is possible to be wealthy yet still persecuted by the government. If you have $50,000 in the bank, but the government is still threatening to kill/harm you for whatever reason, how is that going to help you? It doesn't make you bullet-proof does it? You'd flee as soon as possible, and use whatever money you have to get to the best place possible, which is Australia. If you don't have the cash you could just sell everything you own including your house. source |
03:13pm 21/09/13 Permalink
Pakistan hosting refugees and refugees having rights in Pakistan are two different questions.
They are hosting that many because they are neighboring a country that has been at war on and off for the last 30 years. I would draw your attention again with the Haraza thing in mind to this And this The ones that come down our way really don't have anywhere else to go. *edit* which would also explain why there are so f*****g few of them. Malaysia hosts quite a large number as well. But there is no path to citizenship, meaning that at any time you can be arrested and deported. |
03:33pm 21/09/13 Permalink
I agree, I was just addressing the why don't they flee to neighboring countries question
|
03:38pm 21/09/13 Permalink
Sorry the shopping around thing really gets my goat.
Hey honey they are chopping off all our heads today. We should leave, Australia looks nice. |
03:48pm 21/09/13 Permalink
Well we can all rest easy now. There are going to be no more problems with these pesky boat arrivals:
"Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke has attacked the Federal Government's changes to announcements about asylum seeker boat arrivals, warning of a "culture of secrecy". The previous government issued media alerts every time a boat arrived, but no new alerts have been issued since the new Government was sworn in. The ABC asked both Customs and the Immigration Department whether any boats have arrived in recent days, but the questions were referred back to the Minister's office. A spokesman for the Immigration Minister Scott Morrison would not say if any boats had arrived, and said further details about the Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policy would be provided soon. "Updates will be provided on Operation Sovereign Borders. We will be making further comments on these matters next week," he said in a statement." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/labor-attacks-changes-to-announcements-of-asylum-seeker-arrivals/4972760 Boat problem? What boats? |
03:50pm 21/09/13 Permalink
There's no reason to withhold this info. Government needs to be transparent.
|
04:21pm 21/09/13 Permalink
No-one cares fpot. The libs have told them what to think with their scare mongering campaign, facts are irrelevant.
|
04:30pm 21/09/13 Permalink
Murdoch again dodges greazy's posts in favour of reiterating more erroneous crap. Disapointing.
Check your PMs bookz. |
04:32pm 21/09/13 Permalink
I'd ask for some sort of evidence to back that up but I'd be wasting my time wouldn't I?
|
05:42pm 21/09/13 Permalink
01:37pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Nice try. Scott Morrison has said he will be holding weekly press conferences to discuss all illegal arrivals. Another Labor beatup; another HurricaneJim jpg copy/paste.
|
01:43pm 22/09/13 Permalink
I have solution to the Viking Threat and the Mongol invasion via the sea.
- Build a huge coastal wall with mounted machine guns and sniper towers by forcing the already immigrated peasant races from the middle-east and Asia to construct it with out any pay. Forming black slave mines to harvest natural materials will also keep cost down for such a huge project. - Implement new laws promoting white justice and the suppression of the lesser races when discussing foreign affairs and/or border incursions.. - Take the internet away from the southern states to prevent drama queens and pseudo intellectuals discussing topics that do not concern them or have any long lasting effect on their pathetic and lonely lives. - Arm the Northern Aboriginal tribes with assault rifles and rpg's to protect our white sovereignty and Aryan gene pool. |
02:20pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Nice try. Scott Morrison has said he will be holding weekly press conferences to discuss all illegal arrivals. Another Labor beatup; another HurricaneJim jpg copy/paste. I see, so the fact that they were going to use Lieutenant General Angus Campbell to do the announcements instead until Morrison was convinced by media pressure isn't anything.... You know Abbotts policy is to announce nothing, do very little interviews and never face a public forum like Q and A where he can be easily shown as a muppet. Oh and just while we're at it what happened to this budget emergency they screamed about for three years... https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1273597_613455358710886_684122462_o.jpg |
03:29pm 22/09/13 Permalink
It is such an emergency they have to not talk about it now that the evil government is out. Now it is all about .. I dunno, smoke and mirrors.
|
03:34pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Nice try. Scott Morrison has said he will be holding weekly press conferences to discuss all illegal arrivals. Another Labor beatup; another HurricaneJim jpg copy/paste.Are they also releasing the full amount of information to the media? Because if they aren't (and from what I read they aren't) are we supposed to just believe they are telling the truth? |
03:35pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Having first ratcheted-up the rhetoric around asylum seekers while in opposition, and then made it a key plank of its election pitch, the Coalition's move is deeply concerning. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/public-deserves-to-know-asylumseeker-facts-20130921-2u6nq.html#ixzz2fZ05Ddrw Open, accountable governments are the ones that make public information just that, public. Doing so earns the public's trust, while refusing to release data collected by public servants leads to questions of whether there is something to hide And something about women. |
03:38pm 22/09/13 Permalink
I like how Fpot is all of a sudden so concerned about the reporting of boat arrivals.
|
04:34pm 22/09/13 Permalink
My question about the reporting, why did they change it?
|
06:52pm 22/09/13 Permalink
The first reason that comes to mind is because the new government wants to limit the flow of information to the media. This in turn would reduce mass reporting of boats and without doing a single thing, the arrival of boats would seem to the general public to have lessened and the new governments policy working.
It is a good strategy, dirty, but good. |
06:59pm 22/09/13 Permalink
The official reason is to starve people smugglers of information. This doesn't make much sense to me because I thought the whole idea of OSB was to send them a message in an effort to shut down their business. An important part of sending a message is a transfer of information.
Weekly and monthly briefings to the public are planned, but I don't trust them to report honestly. Without some sort of third party monitoring the boat arrivals what is to stop them from just reporting whatever sounds good? I guess I'll reserve final judgement until we actually start hearing the briefings. Spoiler: But of course, this whole thing is f*****g stupid, because who would actually want to stop the boats when 90.5% of them are genuine refugees? The answer: people who are anti-refugee. Normal people wouldn't even care if there wasn't a noisy little sect of pinheads crying about the boats spreading disinformation. |
07:24pm 22/09/13 Permalink
To be brutally honest, I would prefer each and every boat doesn't get reported, so long as an effective legal mechanism is transparently put in place to defend their rights.
This being a political issue is in no small part to the reporting on the frequency of tiny numbers of people turning up. If the newspapers can't make a meal out of it people with an actual interest and knowledge of the area will take over. Effective policy gets drowned out by some retard with a megaphone, going "another boat!" "complex situation..." "ANOTHER BOAT" "no, one, simple..." "ANOTHER BOAT" "solution, many factors..." "ANOTHER BOAT ZOMG" |
07:49pm 22/09/13 Permalink
That's true, but it's the price paid to be informed and actually know what's going on. It's unfortunate that stupid people exist, but I don't think their existence should stop the flow of information. If the whole issue wasn't so politicised, and the boats just arrived, refugees got resettled, and people didn't froth away about it I'd be happy to not see boat arrivals reported because it is totally not newsworthy in the first place. Now things are the way they are they kind of have to be reported.
As for asylum seekers drowning at sea, I'd be perfectly fine with a levy being charged to cover the cost of safely transporting people over (if one was even needed, it almost certainly wouldn't). They could then be released into the community while their refugee status is determined. At the moment, 90.5% are genuine and I personally think it would be worth having a few people slip through the cracks if such a large majority of genuine refugees are benefiting. I understand how this is impractical, and given the current 'straya c*** climate would never happen but it's nice to dream about. |
07:59pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Yeah, but you don't need an update every thirty seconds to achieve good data. In fact I find an endless sea of constantly updating useless information gets in the way.
Data released monthly is far more useful and less prone to panicky d*******s hitting the panic button all the time. |
08:06pm 22/09/13 Permalink
As long as that information is reliable, sure. We will just have to wait and see what is reported and what oversights exist to ensure the reporting is kosher I guess.
|
08:08pm 22/09/13 Permalink
I am sure your tune would change if 500,000 refugees per year came this way. (Or maybe not, we can just keep increasing taxes.)
noisy little sect of pinheads otherwise known as the majority of australia. |
08:18pm 22/09/13 Permalink
But they had no other choice but to come to Australia! They were that desperate and scared, they skipped numerous safe countries, got on a plane to Indonesia and then boated out to Australia!
|
08:23pm 22/09/13 Permalink
what is this s*** about privatizing the ABC?
|
08:24pm 22/09/13 Permalink
08:30pm 22/09/13 Permalink
thanks for clarifying. the asylum seekers paying tens of thouands of dollars and hopping numerous countries are "running for their lives". i wonder what you would describe refugees who flee over the border into neighbouring countries as?
|
08:36pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Sorry to piss on your party guys but the boat people is a matter of national security not the concerns of college freshman internet human rights activists.
Australia has UN backed refugee programs in place for legitimate refugees with real problems unlike the border incursions being committed by Islamist's (the enemies of the free-world) using criminal enterprises such as people smuggling to invade our country in an attempt form sleeper cells or commit horrible acts of terrorism against our people. I encourage you to stop sipping scotch in your bathrobes while typing up witty remarks but instead refer to a real crises taking place in Syria at the moment involving over 6 million helpless civilians who will most likely die horrible deaths or be sold into child slavery. As patrons of the free-world where the f*** is your humanity? |
09:16pm 22/09/13 Permalink
thanks for clarifying. the asylum seekers paying tens of thouands of dollars and hopping numerous countries are "running for their lives". i wonder what you would describe refugees who flee over the border into neighbouring countries as? If it happened here infi you'd be one of the people on the boat because you have means and determination. Sitting in the first tin pot nation out side of Australia in a tent camp is not how you'd roll ... the irony is that you refuse to acknowledge that attribute in others. |
09:16pm 22/09/13 Permalink
Sorry to piss on your party guys but the boat people is a matter of national security not the concerns of college freshman internet human rights activists. Australia has UN backed refugee programs in place for legitimate refugees with real problems unlike the border incursions being committed by Islamist's (the enemies of the free-world) using criminal enterprises such as people smuggling to invade our country in an attempt form sleeper cells or commit horrible acts of terrorism against our people. I encourage you to stop sipping scotch in your bathrobes while typing up witty remarks but instead refer to a real crises taking place in Syria at the moment involving over 6 million helpless civilians who will most likely die horrible deaths or be sold into child slavery. As patrons of the free-world where the f*** is your humanity? Citations and proof otherwise f*** off. |
11:08pm 22/09/13 Permalink
The point is the hypocrisy of the Liberals now they have power.
They now seem to say: We have had too much politics in the papers its time to stop talking politics that we are all sick of hearing about and get back to work. A case in point is with the reporting of boats. Why is this hypocrisy? Because for the last three years it has been the Liberals themselves that have been beating up the boats story. That was a real thorn in the side of Labor. Especially in places like Western Sydney. The Liberals of course know this and now they are in power obviously they want it to stop. If labor had to endure the scrutiny of a transparent system (which they should in a Democratic system) then its fair so should the liberals. But nice try by the Liberals to shift the goal posts. |
12:32am 23/09/13 Permalink
otherwise known as the majority of australia. You seem at odds with your own position. You'll make one post that fits into the "pinhead" category, then when somebody offers a couterpoint (eg. When it was pointed out that it's a small minority who aren't genuine refugees, after you said "They are gaming the system" as if in reference to a majority) you concede and cop out with "oh but it's all about perceptions and politics rah rah". I'm just going to assume that you're a terrorist. |
01:24am 23/09/13 Permalink
Citations and proof otherwise f*** off. Quote an Australian Politician? lol, way below my pay grade son, the thought of even debating common sense and quoting Politicians dulls the entertainment value greatly. Come back to me when you understand its f*****g illegal to float a boat full of peasants across Australian Navy controlled borders into our beloved country, until then flood this horrible thread with moral theatrics which become tiresome after about 1 millisecond. "borders that are partially or fully controlled may be crossed legally only at designated border checkpoints" derka derka jihad... |
05:08am 23/09/13 Permalink
Quote an Australian Politician? lol, way below my pay grade son, the thought of even debating common sense and quoting Politicians dulls the entertainment value greatly. Come back to me when you understand its f*****g illegal to float a boat full of peasants across Australian Navy controlled borders into our beloved country, until then flood this horrible thread with moral theatrics which become tiresome after about 1 millisecond."borders that are partially or fully controlled may be crossed legally only at designated border checkpoints"derka derka jihad... So now you're calling a Great Grandfather Son? No citations or proof of your allegations means you're full of s***. So do the morally responsible thing and f*** off. Don't go away angry though, stay comfortable in your conspiracy theories and utter ignorance. https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557836_211848795651158_1936794551_n.jpg |
08:39am 23/09/13 Permalink
You seem at odds with your own position. You'll make one post that fits into the "pinhead" category, then when somebody offers a couterpoint (eg. When it was pointed out that it's a small minority who aren't genuine refugees, after you said "They are gaming the system" as if in reference to a majority) you concede and cop out with "oh but it's all about perceptions and politics rah rah". You have got to be retarded. The vast majority of Australians do not agree with the Australian government's accommodating (and expensive) treatment of asylum seekers. Politics is about reflecting the wishes of your constituents not some Convention signed in Brussels. It's amazing how gay marriage advocates like to rely on popular opinion for support of that reform but popular opinion of refugees is not relevant.... |
09:15am 23/09/13 Permalink
The vast majority of Australians do not agree with the Australian government's accommodating (and expensive) treatment of asylum seekers.Only because retards like you, Bolt, Morrison and the LNP mindless minions incite this hatred. If you didn't constantly incite so much hatred against asylum seekers to gain political office at whatever cost, nobody would give a s***.......except the hardcore racists like those in this thread. |
09:20am 23/09/13 Permalink
You need to read the bit about Poe's Law again HurricaneJim.
|
09:23am 23/09/13 Permalink
Disageeing with asylum seekers coming in by people smuggler boats isn't racist or biggotry, fyi
Using words like that is just as much a scare tactic as what you just deacribed SFB |
10:10am 23/09/13 Permalink
If that's the case I'd love for someone to explain why they disagree with a method that delivers 90.5% genuine refugees.
|
10:22am 23/09/13 Permalink
You have got to be retarded. The vast majority of Australians do not agree with the Australian government's accommodating (and expensive) treatment of asylum seekers. Politics is about reflecting the wishes of your constituents not some Convention signed in Brussels.It's amazing how gay marriage advocates like to rely on popular opinion for support of that reform but popular opinion of refugees is not relevant.... I wasn't talking about Australians, or gay marriage, so you must be a little confused. You're definitely a terrorist. |
10:32am 23/09/13 Permalink
Politics is about reflecting the wishes of your constituents?
Why it sure is easy to pander to the masses huh? Easy to "lead" with scare tactics, fear mongering and taking the low road by siding with the lowest common denominator. But what if government was about education? Taking the high road by making the unpopular, but correct, decisions? Those that are morally correct. Ethically correct. Old fashioned leading by example. Leading and governing by virtue of humanity, compassion and doing what you can to assist simply because you are in the position to assist. Actually I believe the "vast majority" of Australians wouldn't close and lock their door on a stranger who turned up at their house, in need, asking for help. No matter who that stranger was. White, black, brown, yellow, religion or creed. I think as Australians we would help that stranger because as Australians we dont turn those away who need our help. Its a pleasant fiction i like to harbor. |
12:22pm 23/09/13 Permalink
First report on boat arrivals will be out today. I don't know why people such as the greens are pretending there is going to be no reports and the information is being hidden?
Probably still butthurt. They all seem to be whinging because a new government is changing things up from the previous failed government. Quote an Australian Politician? lol, way below my pay grade son, the thought of even debating common sense and quoting Politicians dulls the entertainment value greatly. Come back to me when you understand its f*****g illegal to float a boat full of peasants across Australian Navy controlled borders into our beloved country, until then flood this horrible thread with moral theatrics which become tiresome after about 1 millisecond."borders that are partially or fully controlled may be crossed legally only at designated border checkpoints"derka derka jihad... lmfao, i'm liking this new guy. The QGL refugee action group love pretending they are the pinnacle of morality. If that's the case I'd love for someone to explain why they disagree with a method that delivers 90.5% genuine refugees. It's already been explained time and time again why Australians don't like it. The borders should be controlled by the Australian government, not by organized crime. If the control of our borders are given away to criminals, we may aswell disband the government because that is the VERY BASIC thing a government should be able to do. Australians don't like cheats. We know these so called "refugees" pass numerous safe countries to fly into Indonesia and then to pay criminals to boat them to Australia illegally. We know they get a boat here because they don't want to wait in line for a spot through the proper processes. |
12:37pm 23/09/13 Permalink
I think as Australians we would help that stranger because as Australians we dont turn those away who need our help. mind if i come around and ask for $500 then? If you're not ok with that then you're a bit of a hypocrite then aren't you? |
12:49pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Disageeing with asylum seekers coming in by people smuggler boats isn't racist or biggotry, fyiDisagree all you like but habitually shouting it out loud through the media at every opportunity is not showing disagreement, it's about whipping up hysteria. |
12:50pm 23/09/13 Permalink
But what if government was about education? Taking the high road by making the unpopular, but correct, decisions? Those that are morally correct. Ethically correct. Old fashioned leading by example. Leading and governing by virtue of humanity, compassion and doing what you can to assist simply because you are in the position to assist. Why is it such a complex concept to understand that Australians don't like people just rocking up unannounced? Australians want to feel like they have control over their country. We are very fortunate to have a border that can be managed to a certain extent. Citizens in Europe are extremely frustrated at their porous borders (as are the US) and it reflects in much harsher community reactions. Developed countries that can control their borders do so. Australia has an elaborate scheme of tax payer funded support systems which are for OUR citizens. Aussies get pissed off at foreigners just turning up and expecting to tap into the benefits our taxes pay for. Playing thee racism card is pathetic. Even if it is kiwis latching onto benefits or whoever, there is an innate unfairness in people arriving to our country and collecting straight away. Australia has a broad skilled migration program. Our country was built on migrants. It must be done in an orderly fashion, otherwise what control does our government have? If a civil war broke out in Indonesia, how many Indonesians could our country bear? I think Aussies see the current situation as the thin end of the wedge. How far could the refugee intake extend? And what can our country sensibly accommodate? Refugee advocates seem to espouse another pleasant fiction that Australia's capacity is unlimited. As Arthur Sinodinus pointed out on QANDA a couple of months back: why should an asylum seeker who paid ten thousand dollars to a human trafficker get processed ahead of an asylum seeker stuck in a refugee camp? Where is the fairness in that? I think Aussies a very much in tune with the notion of fairness and the fair go. |
12:54pm 23/09/13 Permalink
i'm not disagreeing your main point
but you're kind of doing exactly the same thing by shouting racism back |
12:57pm 23/09/13 Permalink
So I see we have reached that point in the thread where the froth brigade have put forward their arguments, been proven wrong, hit the critical mass point of wrongness and are now just simply repeating the same wrong thing again in an attempt to bore people to death, so I guess I'll just simply repeat this question -
When you are objectively wrong, and the facts are right there in front of you proving so, why do you continue to be wrong? Don't you want to be right? Isn't it preferable to be informed rather than misinformed? ______ i'm not disagreeing your main pointIt's because racism is the only logical conclusion to come to. They aren't genuine refugees, they skip safe neighbouring countries to come here, they're economic migrants, they're queue jumpers etc. These are all things mentioned so far in this thread (and countless others) and they are all things that have been objectively proven wrong. I have been using the word objectively so much because I'd really like it to sink in. There is no wiggle room here, no room to use the old cliche of it's just my opinion and my opinion is just as valid as yours. You are provably wrong if you say any of those things. Really you should be seeking this information out yourself in an effort to stay better informed, but the information has been posted in this very thread. My question is why is it being ignored? Why would you deliberately keep believing and repeating the same wrong thing? The only logical conclusion I can think of is that you're (not you pave you know who) racist and set in your own ignorant ways. Prejudice and ignorance is the antithesis of learning, which is why there are so many uninformed opinions in this thread. mind if i come around and ask for $500 then? If you're not ok with that then you're a bit of a hypocrite then aren't you?If you went through a process proving that you needed it (90.5% are genuine refugees) and if I could easily afford it (like Australia can in it's currently strong economic position) I wouldn't hesitate. |
12:57pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Developed countries that can control their borders do so. Australia has an elaborate scheme of tax payer funded support systems which are for OUR citizens. Aussies get pissed off at foreigners just turning up and expecting to tap into the benefits our taxes pay for. Playing thee racism card is pathetic. Even if it is kiwis latching onto benefits or whoever, there is an innate unfairness in people arriving to our country and collecting straight away.You are correct, Australians do get annoyed at people just rocking up... on a boat. Remember the majority of illegal immigrants are backpackers over staying their visas. Why aren't you up in arms against those f*****g job stealing, bus using, foot path using, bike pedaling, bargain hunting a******* that are here in their TENS of THOUSANDS? I had to delete a whole paragraph of abuse. I think I have tourettes. To be honest, I think if you don't like others coming into your country then that's ok just as long as you don't want ANYONE else coming in as well. To think that the English thought of the Irish and Scottish what the some Australians think of Euroaians is a bit ironic. |
01:16pm 23/09/13 Permalink
You have got to be retarded. The vast majority of Australians do not agree with the Australian government's accommodating (and expensive) treatment of asylum seekers. Politics is about reflecting the wishes of your constituents not some Convention signed in Brussels.It's amazing how gay marriage advocates like to rely on popular opinion for support of that reform but popular opinion of refugees is not relevant.... based on what, most people either get upset regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, or are upset that illegals get so much seems that people have view points that are both valid (based on belief of the process) and both are uneducated about what is really happening, and people get upset if they dont know/understand the full picture I think that by not announcing the arrivals is removing some of the accountably and means that it makes it harder to "see" if the government is doing the job promised and expected (or it could be like newmans promise no to fire any front line staff, so changed what defined a front line job, maybe this is the same, the boats have stopped*) *being taken to Australia and settled here |
03:15pm 23/09/13 Permalink
They are announcing arrivals, in fact, Scott Morrison just did an hour ago.
|
03:37pm 23/09/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/immigration-minister-morrison-details-asylum-seeker-movements/4974758
"Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says hundreds of asylum seekers who have arrived by boat since the federal election have already been transferred to offshore processing centres in a "rapid increase" of the process. In the past two weeks, 523 people have arrived by boat and claimed asylum in Australia. Mr Morrison says about half of those have already left Australia's shores for processing on either Papua New Guinea's Manus Island or Nauru. "More than half have already gone," he told Macquarie Radio. "And we're going to continue to rapidly increase the turnaround time for people transfers.""" ------ Problem? |
03:43pm 23/09/13 Permalink
They are announcing arrivals, in fact, Scott Morrison just did an hour ago. they have changed the announcement procedure from announcing the boats as soon as they are detected, to a weekly media release (which was only announced after the uproar relating to lack of announcements made (after all it was the public on Christmas island that said anything about the latest arrivals which lead to the uproar) now here is the question, would scotty have said anything if te public on the island hadn't said anything? |
04:25pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Whats the difference? Instead of hearing about each boat, we hear about a list of boats each week. Why does this even matter and why are you being so critical? Do you stay glued to your computer tallying up boat arrivals? They're still going to quantify the arrivals, you're still going to get all the info you seem to desperately need, what's the exact problem you're having here? S***, they could say we don't need to know and move on.
Storm, teacup. |
04:35pm 23/09/13 Permalink
it is a subtle difference but it works well for the government
i know they are still going to tell you how many boats arrive but telling you once in the week that 4 boats arrive this week will seem like less than having the headline on channel 7 news 4 nights of the week tell you that a new boat has arrive, the less everyone hears about it the less the problem seems - basically it will be less in your face and more subtle, but smart if you're trying to make it look like you're making a difference |
05:15pm 23/09/13 Permalink
The vast majority of Australians do not agree lol how the f*** can you possibly know that? |
05:19pm 23/09/13 Permalink
lol how the f*** can you possibly know that? because both major parties made border security key aspects of their campaign? is that not obvious? it will be less in your face and more subtle, but smart if you're trying to make it look like you're making a difference i was concerned the Coalition were going to be suppressing illegal arrival information (which is how it was portrayed by the media) but they are changing the reporting frequency. it is still transparent. |
05:40pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Border security != unjustified xenophobia.
You may not give two f**** about refugees but don't apply your own retardation to the rest of Australia. |
05:43pm 23/09/13 Permalink
unjustified xenophobia Last time I checked we are pretty multi-cultural bro. And we don't have ethnic cleaning here either. |
05:46pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Yeh border security is just xenophobia! We should have open borders where you can just stroll into Australia without a passport or anything and just walk down the street. Any thing more is just plain racist.
|
05:48pm 23/09/13 Permalink
i was concerned the Coalition were going to be suppressing illegal arrival information (which is how it was portrayed by the media) but they are changing the reporting frequency. it is still transparent. for the moment, I think that most of the concern centres around the fact that the government refused outright to make a comment about the arrivals, and only after alot of pressure did they say there was a change and that there would be weekly updates (it is unknown if this was the intend of the government in the first place, as no announcement regarding a reporting change was made until well into the day, and the first information about this boat arrival came from the public on christmas island) to add to the above, this boat arrival was refused any comment at all which caused the questions regarding the change in announcements, it could be reasoned that the government was trying to hide the fact as the stated reasons for not disclosing the information did change throughout the day |
05:51pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Last time I checked we are pretty multi-cultural bro. And we don't have ethnic cleaning here either. We have a lot of ethnic cleaning where I work. Ohhh... you mean ethnic cleansing! |
05:52pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Last time I checked we are pretty multi-cultural bro. And yet F*** Off We're Full stickers on the bumper of every run down commodore for the world to see. Yeh border security is just xenophobia! It's the little ! that's the key. |
05:55pm 23/09/13 Permalink
We have a lot of ethnic cleaning where I work. Ohhh... you mean ethnic cleansing! lol, yeah aussie's dont really have the great track record that we think, we have been pretty racist since we buried the body's of abo's in the ground and played soccer with their heads infact with every new flood of people we dont treat them very well until about the 2nd or 3rd generation of that race have been here (unless your Chinese, then we really dont have a good record at all) |
05:57pm 23/09/13 Permalink
In fairness, I'm not sure whether Aussies just don't want those jobs or whether those that do are prepared to go ever lower in the race to the bottom.
Slave rates? You f***en betcha! |
06:01pm 23/09/13 Permalink
And yet F*** Off We're Full stickers on the bumper of every run down commodore for the world to see. Take a photo of a sticker when you see one for me. I drive all over Brisbane and the Gold Coast I would rate them rare. |
06:09pm 23/09/13 Permalink
i was concerned the Coalition were going to be suppressing illegal arrival information (which is how it was portrayed by the media) but they are changing the reporting frequency. it is still transparent. not saying it isn't it is just a subtle way of taking the spotlight off it a bit |
06:13pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Take a photo of a sticker when you see one for me. I drive all over Brisbane and the Gold Coast I would rate them rare. Yeah bro I'll get right on that. |
07:37pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Yeah bro I'll get right on that. well they are "everywhere", shouldn't be too hard. |
07:38pm 23/09/13 Permalink
lol, yeah aussie's dont really have the great track record that we think, we have been pretty racist since we buried the body's of abo's in the ground and played soccer with their heads infact with every new flood of people we dont treat them very well until about the 2nd or 3rd generation of that race have been here (unless your Chinese, then we really dont have a good record at all) I think you would find those people were more Brit than Australian. What what ole chap. I also think you would find a lot of italian and greeks who would strongly disagree with the second and third generation bit as well. Maybe it is just your own racism coming through but you are too afraid to stand alone and admit it., So you need to drag the rest of Australia down with you? |
07:41pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Politics is about reflecting the wishes of your constituents not some Convention signed in Brussels. Er actually Politics is about reflecting your constituents subject to conventions signed in Brussels and enacted into local law. Quote an Australian Politician? lol, way below my pay grade son, the thought of even debating common sense and quoting Politicians dulls the entertainment value greatly. Come back to me when you understand its f*****g illegal to float a boat full of peasants across Australian Navy controlled borders into our beloved country, until then flood this horrible thread with moral theatrics which become tiresome after about 1 millisecond. No it isn't the Migration act specifically allows for asylum seekers to have their claim processed even if they arrive by boat, hence Manus Island, and Nauru. |
07:42pm 23/09/13 Permalink
well they are "everywhere", shouldn't be too hard. Only on run down commodores. Who said "everywhere"? |
07:46pm 23/09/13 Permalink
The run down Commodore is a quintessential Australian icon and now you are wanting to tar all those vehicle owners with the same brush, bigot.
|
07:53pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Noah you are pretty xenophobic.
|
07:56pm 23/09/13 Permalink
bl me I guess.
The chicken parmigiana I just made disagrees with you both. It's italian. Clearly not xenophobic biggotry. |
08:01pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Noah is not racist, in fact one of his best chicken dishes is Italian.
|
08:04pm 23/09/13 Permalink
well they are "everywhere", shouldn't be too hard. I've seen that sticker twice. One was on the back of a VW and the other one was on a late model rage rover. Haven't seen one on a commodore yet. |
08:09pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Noah is not racist, in fact one of his best chicken dishes is Italian. lol |
08:13pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Noah is not racist, in fact one of his best chicken dishes is Italian. Would it be racist if i said it was an African American chicken dish which is the best? |
08:14pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Why is it such a complex concept to understand that Australians don't like people just rocking up unannounced? Australians want to feel like they have control over their country. We are very fortunate to have a border that can be managed to a certain extent. Citizens in Europe are extremely frustrated at their porous borders (as are the US) and it reflects in much harsher community reactions.Developed countries that can control their borders do so. Australia has an elaborate scheme of tax payer funded support systems which are for OUR citizens. Aussies get pissed off at foreigners just turning up and expecting to tap into the benefits our taxes pay for. Playing thee racism card is pathetic. Even if it is kiwis latching onto benefits or whoever, there is an innate unfairness in people arriving to our country and collecting straight away.Australia has a broad skilled migration program. Our country was built on migrants. It must be done in an orderly fashion, otherwise what control does our government have?If a civil war broke out in Indonesia, how many Indonesians could our country bear? I think Aussies see the current situation as the thin end of the wedge. How far could the refugee intake extend? And what can our country sensibly accommodate? Refugee advocates seem to espouse another pleasant fiction that Australia's capacity is unlimited.As Arthur Sinodinus pointed out on QANDA a couple of months back: why should an asylum seeker who paid ten thousand dollars to a human trafficker get processed ahead of an asylum seeker stuck in a refugee camp? Where is the fairness in that? I think Aussies a very much in tune with the notion of fairness and the fair go. Australians, Australia, Aussies etc. Stop pretending you're speaking for Australians. Just say "I", "me", and "my", it's really not that hard. I like how even after it's pointed out that over 90% of the boat arrivals are genuine refugees, and you concede on that point, and have virtually every other point of yours shot down (queue jumpers, people gaming the system etc), you keep on plugging away. It's that true blue Aussie spirit shining through. |
09:50pm 23/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Dumb |
10:07pm 23/09/13 Permalink
Australians, Australia, Aussies etc. Stop pretending you're speaking for Australians. Just say "I", "me", and "my", it's really not that hard. The election result demonstrated Australians opinion on border protection very loudly. I like how even after it's pointed out that over 90% of the boat arrivals are genuine refugees, We have a genuine until proven otherwise system. Theres no way the department of immigration could verify each and every story. The rorting of the system and the failure of the processes have been well covered on 7:30. We know that people from Afghanistan and Iran bypass numerous safe neighbouring countries to fly to Indonesia to then pay 10's of thousands of dollars to people smugglers to boat them to Australia. If they were that desperate for a safe haven, they would go to a safe neighboring country(they already demonstrate that they are willing to fly anywhere) and you concede on that point, and have virtually every other point of yours shot down (queue jumpers, people gaming the system etc), Umm no. Where? Quotes from a refugee resource centre website? You'll have to do better than that. It's that true blue Aussie spirit shining through. Not blindly submitting to something because people are bullying you with fear words such as "racist" "bigot" etc? Yep, i'd agree that's true aussie spirit. |
12:26am 24/09/13 Permalink
Why would I bother debating you, when you've spent most of the thread posting erroneous claims and misinformation that has already been countered multiple times with actual facts? You've ignored most of the replies, presumably because they contain things like evidence and sources, which undermines your modus operandi, which is to spam absolute horses*** at every turn. I can't tell if you're genuine or not. You invest a lot of time and effort, which tells me you're probably the real deal, but the sheer idiocy and ignorance you display is hard to swallow.
I'll answer to one paragraph, but I'm not going to further waste my time until you do greazy the courtesy of not having wasted his. I've thoughtfully provided one of the many dodged posts. We have a genuine until proven otherwise system. Theres no way the department of immigration could verify each and every story. The rorting of the system and the failure of the processes have been well covered on 7:30. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/boat-people-genuine-refugees-20130519-2juvg.html http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e487af6&submit=GO Greazy has provided other links and sources. His post: I am having a hard time not abusing you. I am assuming you are just ignorant, therefore please read below for facts with sources. |
01:07am 24/09/13 Permalink
I think you would find those people were more Brit than Australian. What what ole chap.I also think you would find a lot of italian and greeks who would strongly disagree with the second and third generation bit as well.Maybe it is just your own racism coming through but you are too afraid to stand alone and admit it., So you need to drag the rest of Australia down with you? nope, I think that you'll find a heap of that greek and italians were pretty vocal too, I think you'll find that most of those at the cronulla riots were not of brit background fyi, i'm mixed, (euro) but track can track my family in this country to mid 1800's as free settlers in south aus, and have lived in all the major states, brisbane's pretty chilled and non racist, but there are parts of sydney that are highly passionate about their background |
03:29am 24/09/13 Permalink
I think the thread would proceed much more smoothly if we could agree to look at the boats as two separate things:
1. that boats arrive with refugees 2. that boats arrive with refugees and this is used as a political "weapon" If we can do that, and just all agree, that the boats arrivals were used by the liberals to attack labor, almost everyday for the last three years, and thus were a political weapon (very successful one) we can look at the reporting issue. Can we all just agree that this was so? If its just reporting on boats as the 1st issue its no big deal if its once a week. But if its looked at as the 2nd (as political leverage) then can we agree that the new way of reporting on boat arrivals is just the liberals trying to take the edge off a political issue? Dodging the bullet as it were? The liberals are changing the goal posts. They were all for everyday reporting so long as it was labor drawing the heat. Finally after the reporting issue lets look at that week report that already been quoted above: "In the past two weeks, 523 people have arrived by boat and claimed asylum in Australia. Mr Morrison says about half of those have already left Australia's shores for processing on either Papua New Guinea's Manus Island or Nauru. "More than half have already gone," he told Macquarie Radio. "And we're going to continue to rapidly increase the turnaround time for people transfers." There is the discussion about whether it is the right thing for australia to be stopping or turning back boats at all. The liberals want to frame the discussion as "can we stop the boats". They have been very good at making this the central topic. This is very different to the discussion we should be having (as we are having here) that is "should we be stopping boats and turning away people at all"? Atm it seems that the offshore processing is just pushing Australian responsibilities onto our neighbors so that the libs can say (or be seen to have) "we stopped the boats, we turned them back". Which of course is not what they have done according to their own report. |
03:48am 24/09/13 Permalink
yeah, i would think that the turn around of arrivals to processing is due to methods already in place rather than anything that they have changed
|
04:11am 24/09/13 Permalink
Australians, Australia, Aussies etc. Stop pretending you're speaking for Australians. Just say "I", "me", and "my", it's really not that hard.I like how even after it's pointed out that over 90% of the boat arrivals are genuine refugees, and you concede on that point, and have virtually every other point of yours shot down (queue jumpers, people gaming the system etc), you keep on plugging away. It's that true blue Aussie spirit shining through. Wonder how many "genuine refugees" turn up at refugee camps in brand new designer clothes and huge amounts of cash in places like the Sudan? How many of those refugees in the Sudan travel by plane and through half a dozen safe countries to get to the refugee camp? The illegal boat ppl are asylum shopping. And they can afford it seems,,, Australia, the best asylum money can buy. And Murdoch can say Australians and aussies, because i like the excellent points he is making and give him permission to speak for me. |
07:34am 24/09/13 Permalink
That wasn't Murdoch that I was initially replying to, wulfy.
|
09:46am 24/09/13 Permalink
Why would I bother debating you Well all you have done so far is copy and paste other others peoples and post "YEH! WHAT HE SAID!" posts. when you've spent most of the thread posting erroneous claims and misinformation That's your opinion but in reality i haven't. I invite you to come up with one thing i'v said that is erroneous. that has already been countered multiple times with actual facts? Spamming quotes from a refugee resource isn't "facts" half those quotes have already been proven erroneous and incorrect. You've ignored most of the replies No i haven't. I'v responded to people who have directed their quotes to me. The only post i did ignore is greazy's which was filled with quotes from a refugee resource(who have vested interests) and as i'v previously said, i won't be replying to posts filled with quotes from such a place as they are filled with incorrect information. We've already gone through this before and i won't be going in circles. Here's an example; "Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants." As per Article 31 of the UN Convention and 42 of the Migration Act, their entry is illegal. You invest a lot of time and effort, which tells me you're probably the real deal, but the sheer idiocy and ignorance you display is hard to swallow. I deal in facts, not emotive cherry picking backed up by refugee resource centre quotes. |
09:51am 24/09/13 Permalink
So I see you're just dribbling s*** at this point, but I thought it might be a good idea to bring this up again to give some insight to your reasoning.
Now we all know Murdoch is aka SheerObesity right? Good. http://i.imgur.com/MWTrzRR.jpg There is proof that you used to post as bonertron69 before the account was permabanned. Now what type of things did bonertron69 used to say? http://i.imgur.com/RJ6F1Hu.jpg The bottom bit is the pertinent one. Murdoch here believes that Anders Breivik was correct in thinking that the western world is being invaded by muslims, he was just wrong how he went about combating it. So we have here a real life Anders Breivik apologist. That takes a pretty warped mind, and explains the absolute s*** he goes on and on about. It's also the real reason why he doesn't like boat arrivals - he literally believes that we are being invaded by muslims and our culture is under threat. So there you go, no more bulls***, just the facts on this lonely little weirdo and why he posts the way he does. |
11:41am 24/09/13 Permalink
No it isn't the Migration act specifically allows for asylum seekers to have their claim processed even if they arrive by boat, hence Manus Island, and Nauru. After being arrested, imprisoned and then interrogated under the 1958 Australian Migration Act but youre still a refugee though under UN conventions, we better cry for you on the internets and spew political conditioning in the form of retorts. |
11:48am 24/09/13 Permalink
This whole issue will disappear soon. There's simply no reason now to catch a boat to Australia. It won't give you an advantage. It will be like in the John Howard years how the boats were stopped and then the issue disappeared completely.
I await the stopping of the boats once again. |
12:34pm 24/09/13 Permalink
01:16pm 24/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: disruptive / banned |
04:34pm 24/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: d-word |
04:37pm 24/09/13 Permalink
05:26pm 24/09/13 Permalink
I think the thread would proceed much more smoothly if we could agree to look at the boats as two separate things:1. that boats arrive with refugees2. that boats arrive with refugees and this is used as a political "weapon"If we can do that, and just all agree t. But the thing is.1. they aren't refugees that means that 2 is red herring |
05:34pm 24/09/13 Permalink
As per Article 31 of the UN Convention and 42 of the Migration Act, their entry is illegal. Yeah you can quote but you can't read. If you read section 42 of the Migration Act merely states that visas are essential for travel in Australia. Turning up with out a visa isn't instantly illegal as s 42 (2A) (e) and (f) clearly contemplate. Moreover 48A and 48B deal with the issuing and the ministerial granting of amnesty in the event of 48A not having effect, such was the outcome of Al-Kateb v Godwin (specifically in that case the executive had the right to detain someone for a non-punative reason IE not because something was illegal.) Legislation the likes of the migration act might be a bit beyond you. Section 42 does nothing more then engage a large number of subsequent sections, at the end of which a determination of legality can be made but not before. You and your new buddy Pandaemonean are ill informed jackasses. |
05:56pm 24/09/13 Permalink
This whole issue will disappear soon. There's simply no reason now to catch a boat to Australia. It won't give you an advantage. It will be like in the John Howard years how the boats were stopped and then the issue disappeared completely.I await the stopping of the boats once again. so the policys that labor put in place before the election are working, well done LNP |
06:24pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Do you remember the Pacific Solution copuis?
|
06:35pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Yeah you can quote but you can't read. If you read section 42 of the Migration Act merely states that visas are essential for travel in Australia. Turning up with out a visa isn't instantly illegal as s 42 (2A) (e) and (f) clearly contemplate. It is illegal. It doesn't matter what your "contemplation" is. If you show up in Australia without a visa you are breaking the law and will be detained. Trying to claim otherwise is just illogical, we wouldn't have detentions centres to detain people and anyone would just be able to freely come to Australia and walk out onto the streets. Article 31 of the UN convention acknowledges it's illegal to enter without a visa but sets out surety that people seeking asylum cannot be prosecuted or criminally charged for the act. so the policys that labor put in place before the election are working, well done LNP They may have been the policies Labor put in place, but they are the Liberals policies(Pacific solution,off-shore processing). Labor finally bit the bullet and implemented them after years of boats and when they finally realized the Aussie public wouldn't stand for it. Labor did something right for once. Shock and Horror. Now combine with John Howards pacific solution and the turning back of boats and all the other measures under Operation Sovereign Borders the boats will finally be stopped. Well....... until Labor gets back in and dismantles it again |
06:39pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Yeah you can quote but you can't read. If you read section 42 of the Migration Act merely states that visas are essential for travel in Australia. Turning up with out a visa isn't instantly illegal as s 42 (2A) (e) and (f) clearly contemplate. Moreover 48A and 48B deal with the issuing and the ministerial granting of amnesty in the event of 48A not having effect, such was the outcome of Al-Kateb v Godwin (specifically in that case the executive had the right to detain someone for a non-punative reason IE not because something was illegal.)Legislation the likes of the migration act might be a bit beyond you. Section 42 does nothing more then engage a large number of subsequent sections, at the end of which a determination of legality can be made but not before. You and your new buddy Pandaemonean are ill informed jackasses. Being intercepted by Navy vessels and arrested on a illegal smuggler boat after being spotted by a 24/7 border surveillance aircraft patrolling a controlled border which does not allow boat arrivals is of little to no concern because the UN will abolish borders and stop all wars then Australia wont need silly Migration Laws or Airport checkpoints. You can take a breath now... . |
06:42pm 24/09/13 Permalink
It is illegal. It doesn't matter what your "contemplation" is. If you show up in Australia without a visa you are breaking the law and will be detained. Trying to claim otherwise is just illogical, we wouldn't have detentions centres to detain people and anyone would just be able to freely come to Australia and walk out onto the streets. No its not. Section 42 clearly identifies exceptions to the operation of 42(1), I didn't say I contemplated it, I said the legislation contemplates exceptions to the operation of 42(1). You can apply for a visa from immigration detention. Seems strange that it would be illegal to turn up with out a visa but you can apply for one despite having broken the law. Having a criminal record can make it hard to get a visa. You don't know what your talking about. The detention is allowable only to determine the legality of you entry, not as a punishment for breaking the law. I have read the cases interpreting this act. I seriously doubt you have. Article 31 of the UN convention for people that can read says that people who are illegally in your country may have rights as a refugee, not that seeking asylum is illegal, nor that a particular method of arrival is illegal. But that is nuance that is wasted on chaps like you I suppose. |
06:56pm 24/09/13 Permalink
No its not. Section 42 clearly identifies exceptions to the operation of 42(1), I didn't say I contemplated it, I said the legislation contemplates exceptions to the operation of 42(1). You can apply for a visa from immigration detention. Seems strange that it would be illegal to turn up with out a visa but you can apply for one despite having broken the law. Having a criminal record can make it hard to get a visa.You don't know what your talking about. The detention is allowable only to determine the legality of you entry, not as a punishment for breaking the law. I have read the cases interpreting this act. I seriously doubt you have. Article 31 of the UN convention for people that can read says that people who are illegally in your country may have rights as a refugee, not that seeking asylum is illegal, nor that a particular method of arrival is illegal. But that is nuance that is wasted on chaps like you I suppose. Illegal entry. |
07:09pm 24/09/13 Permalink
MurdochMediaConspiracy, you are being out classed by PronoPete. I suggest you accept defeat on that argument and amend your beliefs to be in-line with reality. I wise man acknowledges when he is defeated, continuing to fight now will just bring more shame onto your name.
|
07:17pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Pandaemonean, throwing your towel in with a defeated man will only hurt you too. Just accept what is written in the law and understand what is being told to you.
You are both being provided an opportunity to gain a better understanding and thus strengthening the foundations for your arguments, instead of blindly ignoring it, adapt to it. |
07:19pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Pandaemonean, throwing your towel in with a defeated man will only hurt you too. Just accept what is written in the law and understand what is being told to you. Over complicating simple counter-points is a good way to attract a sped forum fan uprising and produce jaded results. Controlled Border Migration Act Boat No Visa Illegal entry. Arrested UN refugee Convention Detained |
07:31pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Pandaemonean is obviously joking guys.
I have solution to the Viking Threat and the Mongol invasion via the sea.That is not a serious post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law |
08:00pm 24/09/13 Permalink
I don't see what the big deal is about hearing only once a week that x amount of salt water hippies landed/were intercepted this week.
Personally, I couldn't care less if there was only one announcement per month. Oh that's right, can't make a media beat up over it every f*****g day if that happens. Perhaps we could then get "Sunday Night Survivor" instead of that Big Brother s***. Yup, see how many vote that b**** off the island! |
08:11pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Pandaemonean is obviously joking guys.That is not a serious post.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law You accuse me of being a fraud yet you stand up for refugees from a war which George Bush won in 3days over 10yrs ago. Must be so s*** living in the free world to turn your love towards terrorism. think of Syria. http://www.worldvision.com.au/issues/emergencies/Current_Emergencies/Syria_refugee_crisis.aspx |
08:14pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Don't worry bro it's something I feel very Syriasly about.
|
08:15pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Don't worry bro it's something I feel very Syriasly about. Im not your "bro". |
08:16pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Learning is fun. The Migration act has over 500 sections, with hundreds more subsections. It is an enormously complex piece of legislation, one provision saying you need a visa isn't the end of the story. |
08:31pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Indonesia has the f*****g balls to tell us what to do?
Member of the Commonwealth, Oceanic Super Power and Americas best friend. |
08:56pm 24/09/13 Permalink
Well all you have done so far is copy and paste other others peoples and post "YEH! WHAT HE SAID!" posts. Making the same points that you've already dodged multiple times throughout the thread would be redundant. That's your opinion but in reality i haven't. I invite you to come up with one thing i'v said that is erroneous. It'd be easier to just say "everything", but I'll go for this for the sake of highlighting exactly who you are and what you represent: I'm not anti-refugee at all... i personally don't have any issues with us taking in refugees, of any race, religion, creed, or colour either. From the same person who said this: Western society is under threat from multiculturalism and islam. Basically everything he said is true In reference to Anders Breivik. It takes a special kind of nutcase to have not only read his literature, but also agree with it. And a special kind of liar to assert, for the sake of putting on a front in a debate, that they have no issues with refugees, when they're actually opposed to multiculturalism, to the extent of supporting and defending the views of a white supremacist mass murderer. Spamming quotes from a refugee resource isn't "facts" half those quotes have already been proven erroneous and incorrect. If it's as flimsy as you say, then it shouldn't be too hard to refute with your own facts and sources, right? quotes from a refugee resource(who have vested interests) and as i'v previously said, i won't be replying to posts filled with quotes from such a place as they are filled with incorrect information. See above. You also dodged my post and links. Must be conveninient to be able to cop out of replying to a point or argument whenever it suits you, by dismissing the credibility of a source without actually undermining it's validity in any way. I deal in facts But sure seem to have a really hard time backing them up with any evidence. Case in point, you blindly posting some Articles which you clearly hadn't read or understand, with the expectation that nobody else had either. A shame for you PornoPete had read them, and yet again you go down in flames as a result. |
09:01pm 24/09/13 Permalink
If we are talking about facts then how do we establish the refugee credentials of someone who comes with nothing and has destroyed all of their documents? UNHCR will side with the refugee's claims right? How can they lose! The Aussie taxpayers foots the bill.
Any casino that had a 90% win rate would naturally be a very popular casino, the limo industry would be doing swell, and the operators would also be going broke. |
11:00pm 24/09/13 Permalink
It'd be easier to just say "everything", but I'll go for this for the sake of highlighting exactly who you are and what you represent: See, you can't come up with a single thing. You have "YEH WHAT HE SAID" to posts that have been debunked EG: It is illegal to enter Australian waters without a visa and then pretended that it's incorrect by posting quotes from a refugee resource centre. Hilarious stuff. From the same person who said this: I haven't said any of that. I have a sneaking suspicion you must be a secondary Fpot account. If it's as flimsy as you say, then it shouldn't be too hard to refute with your own facts and sources, right? I already did, you obviously have a hard time reading. Scroll up just a bit. Greasy copied and pasted a few of them and they were easily debunked. EG: Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. Reality - Article 31 of the UN convention says it is so does the Australian Migration act. See above. You also dodged my post and linksSee above. You dodged my statement that i won't be responding to quotes from a refugee resource(who have vested interests) because they have already been proven wrong and i don't feel like going in circles. I'm not dodging anything. These points have already been covered and responded to earlier. I'm not going to sit here and continue to write out the same responses to the same things because you and anyone else can't be bothered rereading previous posts. It's called going around in circles, the discussion needs to move forward. But sure seem to have a really hard time backing them up with any evidence. You seem to have a hard time reading and you seem to be in the business of ignoring things that are posted to continue on with your false argument lines. (An Fpot tactic, you seem more and more like an Fpot secondary account) Pops up out of no where, posts some white noise and then jumps into this thread and starts using Fpot tactics and writes like Fpot. Nice try. |
11:01pm 24/09/13 Permalink
EG: Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. lol no it doesn't. Do you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalala" when somebody proves you wrong? What is so hard about admitting that you may have gotten your facts mixed up, or misunderstood something you read? You say you don't dodge posts, but I read this thread through, paying careful attention to what was said to you and what you've addressed, and you ignore the majority of peoples arguments, regardless of sources, if it looks even remotely like you've been bested, which happens to be most, if not all of the time. It's absurd to read you denying it, when it's plastered all over these pages. Yet again I'm going to copy and paste a post that you yet again ignored. No its not. Section 42 clearly identifies exceptions to the operation of 42(1), I didn't say I contemplated it, I said the legislation contemplates exceptions to the operation of 42(1). You can apply for a visa from immigration detention. Seems strange that it would be illegal to turn up with out a visa but you can apply for one despite having broken the law. Having a criminal record can make it hard to get a visa. F*** no am I invested enough in this to trawl through the UN convention or Migration act, and I know you aren't either, you just did a quick google and are parroting Scott Morrison, a real grasp. You'd be the first to dismiss the UN convention if it stated to the contrary, and they were breaking Australian or international law, which they aren't. |
01:28am 25/09/13 Permalink
F*** no am I invested enough in this to trawl through the UN convention or Migration act, and I know you aren't either, Umm i am hence why im quoting it. HERP DERP DERPPPPPP. So you finally admit that all you are doing is "MEE TOOING" other peoples posts without actually looking up the information yourself, one of the old "it sounds about right" tricks. Nice one. lol no it doesn't. Do you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalala" when somebody proves you wrong? It does and by your own admission you would have no idea if it does or does not because you aren't "invested" enough in the subject to check. Yet again I'm going to copy and paste a post that you yet again ignored. I responded directly to his post. Yet again, you ignore posts yourself and then claim i'm doing it. EPIC FAIL. What is so hard about admitting that you may have gotten your facts mixed up, or misunderstood something you read? Because i haven't. Here's what article 31 of the UN convention says. "the Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened ...enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence" It's acknowledging their presence is illegal, but it sets out they should not be punished for it. So all this time you have been "ME TOOING" other peoples posts and screaming hysterically "YOU'RE WRONG, JUST ACCEPT IT" it's infact you who has been wrong. you just did a quick google and are parroting Scott Morrison, a real grasp. Actually, i'm parroting the UN convention. This is basic knowledge, a google search wasn't even required. No doubt you you will respond, ignoring what was just posted and frothing with "NO YOU'RE WRONG, LOOK WHAT THIS GUY SAID". Better yet, your next post should be you admitting which other members second account you are. |
01:42am 25/09/13 Permalink
It's acknowledging their presence is illegal, but it sets out they should not be punished for it. You haven't responded once to my laying out of the migration act you obviously haven't even read s42. Nor have you responded to the fact that Haraza Aghanies come to Australia because there is nowhere else in the region for them to go. Other than say they are 'surrounded' by signatories to the UNHCR which is demonstrably false. Here is your clipping of article 31 of the convention less the bold. the Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened ...enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence Point to the bit that says arriving in Australia without a visa by boat is illegal. Where are those exact words you moron. They aren't there because its not for the UN to legislate for its member countries. There is more to the story than bolding the word Illegal in the article. Acknowledging that entry can be illegal is not the same as saying it is. But again, like I said, nuance is not something your evidently capable of. You don't deal in facts. Not one of your assertions has been shown to be correct. You don't understand the field at all. |
09:11am 25/09/13 Permalink
MurdochMediaConspiracy has the zealousness of a religious fanatic. No amount of logic or proof is going to change his mind. He is operating on the level of faith.
He BELIEVES that an Islamic force is trying to invade Australia to create sleeper cells, and coming in on boats is one of these ways. There is no amount of logic you can use to change his mind, similar how you can't logically argue a devote christian into becoming agnostic. Just stop the pointless back-and-forth it wont change a thing, not one. |
09:44am 25/09/13 Permalink
one of the old "it sounds about right" tricks Which is exactly what you're doing with Scott Morrison, and yet you think it's a point of derision? Not the brightest spark, are you? I responded directly to his post. Yet again, you ignore posts yourself and then claim i'm doing it. EPIC FAIL. The "EPIC FAIL" would be the fact that you're so lost in your own convoluted bulls*** that you didn't realise that you have not in fact responded to that post. Would you like me to copy and paste it again so that you can actually read it? You might want to quickly scan towards the bottom of the last page, then look at all of your replies since then. There are not enough palms for my face. Because i haven't. Here's what article 31 of the UN convention says. You'd be the first to dismiss the UN convention if it stated to the contrary, and they were breaking Australian or international law, which they aren't. |
10:21am 25/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
10:28am 25/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
10:41am 25/09/13 Permalink
Not one counter to murdochs claim. And saying hurp derp does not count.
|
12:08pm 25/09/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r seems to have the right of it.
There comes a point where those who have read thru the comments can very clearly see which way the argument / debate is going. Can see who is using valid tactics to present the best case for their point of view. Can also see those that are just going to keep on long after they have lost the argument, past what would be reasonable, in the face of well raised points they cannot respond to nor refute. Tho today: "Dr Marty Natalegawa has met with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop on the sidelines of United Nations meetings in New York. "We have reiterated that Indonesia cannot accept any Australian policy that would, in nature, violate Indonesia's sovereignty," Dr Natalegawa told reporters in New York. "I think the message has been conveyed loud and clear and has been understood well." http://www.themercury.com.au/news/breaking-news/bishop-admits-refugee-issue-needs-work/story-fnj6ehgr-1226726621018 Which seems like Indonesia is cranky and will not allow Australia to "turn back" boats. The real question is what can they do about it if Australian Navel vessels escort refugee boats out of Australian waters? Its not like our Australia’s territorial waters boarder Indonesia directly (like they do PNG - google the map of our territorial waters) - there is a lot of open international water between us and Indonesia? But really the idea of the Australian navy intercepting leaky refugee boats in Australian waters and then escorting them to the edge of Australia’s territorial waters just seems implausible as a solution - the refuges could wait half a day and just turn around and come back again OR sabotage their own craft forcing a pick up or some other desperate act. Turning the boats back just doesn't look like it would work so what is Indonesia worried about in practice apart from having to weather stupid remakes from silly Australian politicians putting forth unsound policy |
01:24pm 25/09/13 Permalink
MurdochMediaConspiracy has the zealousness of a religious fanatic. No amount of logic or proof is going to change his mind. He is operating on the level of faith. Well the same could be said about you and others. The fact is, we have a government that was elected by the people who acknowledges the same facts that i have been setting out in my posts. It's your opinion that i'm ignoring logic and proof but i'v set out evidence to what i'v been saying and all your("your" being the small group of you who agree with eachother) evidence has been is quotes from refugee resources and your own interpretation of the UN and Migration acts. So basically what you are all saying is that you all have a better understanding of the law than the Australian government and that our current government is wrong because of what a refugee resource says. It's quite remarkable. At the end of the day, you guys can stay in denial and keep thinking it's perfectly legal to enter Australia without a visa via boat because a refugee resource said so, while detesting what i'm saying as "wrong" because i'm acknowledging the law and what our government says. It's no skin off my back.
What? Are you really going to stoop so low in this debate that you are going to make up things i'v never said? I'v never posted such a thing. It just goes to show your mentality that you are willing to imagine things i'v never said because you can't beat my argument. Don't be ridiculous please. I think it's time to depart this debate, on account of that little brainfart from you. |
02:03pm 25/09/13 Permalink
You know, we could always combine a couple of things:
Implement start-up farms growing staple foods like potatoes/rice. Refugees arriving by boat go into these farms and are put to work for minimum wage whilst they wait to be processed. On sight Schools are provided for the children. Overtime the refugees are accepted or denied like usual, except in this situation they are being productive members of society, learning skills and their children are receiving an education. If they are accepted then they enter into a resettlement program where they are strategically homed to maximize integration into Australian society. Studies have shown that people better integrate into the host countries couture if they are NOT grouped together in ethnic centers. The food grown from these farms are given as food-aid to needy countries. Even flawed as this is, it is heaps better and more humane then to just turn back boats/buy boats (LOL). |
02:17pm 25/09/13 Permalink
A lot of foreigners come from overseas I have been told today.
|
02:20pm 25/09/13 Permalink
Ok fair enough if that isn't what you believe. You still seem to ignore the facts presented to you by pornopete. It was time for you to depart a long time ago when you lost hehehe
|
02:20pm 25/09/13 Permalink
Also, yes I have a suspicion Pornopete has a greater understanding of this legislation then the Prime Minister of our Country.
|
02:21pm 25/09/13 Permalink
You know, we could always combine a couple of things: Or we could send them back and make them wait their turn to migrate to Australia like everyone else has too. What people seem to not understand us that these so called refugees who arrive via their $50,000 boat ride are buying their visas. If some rich American was to do this you would all be up in tears protesting the system |
02:37pm 25/09/13 Permalink
Or we could send them back And what happens when they resist? If some rich American was to do this you would all be up in tears protesting the system What like we are about the rich American tourists who overstay their visas each year? |
03:05pm 25/09/13 Permalink
And what happens when they resist? All the more reason to send them back. Not only do they disrespect our laws by coming here illegally they ignore the consequences for breaking those laws. What like we are about the rich American tourists who overstay their visas each year? Are those "rich Americans' given huge welfare payments plus top notch medical treatment like dental etc that Australian citizens have to wait years for? Or are they put back on the first available plane? Yeah that's right |
03:51pm 25/09/13 Permalink
You know, we could always combine a couple of things: "Put to work" While we are at it, we will also get them to pick cotton and answer their white bosses with "YES MR BOSS MAN SIR" /rollseyes |
04:32pm 25/09/13 Permalink
O wait, you want to be able to complain that they take our tax money and not do anything.
Give them the choice to work or not, they can earn minimum wage (at least) whilst they wait for their assessment. Get some compassion you tools, 'send them back' pfft. There isn't even that many in the grand scheme of things. |
05:51pm 25/09/13 Permalink
At the end of the day, you guys can stay in denial and keep thinking it's perfectly legal to enter Australia without a visa via boat because a refugee resource said so, while detesting what i'm saying as "wrong" because i'm acknowledging the law and what our government says. Yeah refugee resource said so. It's called the Migration act. Here's the link. Ability to understand plain English an advantage. |
06:31pm 25/09/13 Permalink
O wait, you want to be able to complain that they take our tax money and not do anything. No. I want asylum shoppers on boats turned back full stop. Legitimate refugees given TPV's(which entitles them to live in and work in the community) and if necessary permanent residency NOT mass soviet style Gulag camps where people are forced to work. Nice suggestion though mate. +1 for trying. |
09:26pm 25/09/13 Permalink
i know when the WW2 refugees arrived from Europe, after the war, as part of the resettlement program they signed up to work for a few years in what ever form Australia had for them
How do i know this? Well if u live in Brisbane and use gas,,, well my grandfather worked for the gas mains digging ditches so your house has gas. He was a polish refugee from Europe after WW2 and that is what Australia had him doing for a few years after he arrived. Pretty brutal work digging ditches in the Australian sun as a European. But he never complained cause he was happy to find a home. So he didn't have a problem working for his new country. And id bet most of the refugees would likewise be of benefit to Australia given half the chance. After all if your not aboriginal then you arrived via boats (maybe flying boats) and got a fair go to prove if you could contribute to our country and if your posting here, and your not aboriginal, then it was probably a good bet. We are a country that offers a fair go for everyone. no matter where you came from (and dont think for one instant my grand father had it easy coming here. Why not? Because he came with his German wife - someone not really welcome after WW2) so why change that now? yesterdays foes - the Germans for that generation that was my grandfathers or the middle east Muslims of today - are tomorrows conservative Australians saying f*** off we are full. it will never change unless we get above it and start to see people as,,, people. like you are people. and i are people. |
09:29pm 25/09/13 Permalink
We are a country that offers a fair go for everyone. Even those who come via organised crime. |
09:51pm 25/09/13 Permalink
i know when the WW2 refugees arrived from Europe, after the war, as part of the resettlement program they signed up to work for a few years in what ever form Australia had for themHow do i know this? Well if u live in Brisbane and use gas,,, well my grandfather worked for the gas mains digging ditches so your house has gas. He was a polish refugee from Europe after WW2 and that is what Australia had him doing for a few years after he arrived. Pretty brutal work digging ditches in the Australian sun as a European. But he never complained cause he was happy to find a home.So he didn't have a problem working for his new country. And id bet most of the refugees would likewise be of benefit to Australia given half the chance.After all if your not aboriginal then you arrived via boats (maybe flying boats) and got a fair go to prove if you could contribute to our country and if your posting here, and your not aboriginal, then it was probably a good bet.We are a country that offers a fair go for everyone. no matter where you came from (and dont think for one instant my grand father had it easy coming here. Why not? Because he came with his German wife - someone not really welcome after WW2) so why change that now?yesterdays foes - the Germans for that generation that was my grandfathers or the middle east Muslims of today - are tomorrows conservative Australians saying f*** off we are full. it will never change unless we get above it and start to see people as,,, people. like you are people. and i are people. Not as if we wouldn't have had gas. There would have been plenty of Aussie labour if they all didn't die in two wars keeping your grandparents free. And do you know why your family was given a fair go? Because they came here legally. Plus they came from similar backgrounds, where people are equal, well except your grandmother, she had to have those values beaten into her. And yes people are people. And people are animals and animals don't like different animals. Leopards and lions are cats, But you don't see them living together do you? Because they are different. Get out of this fairly land you're living in. No wonder the greens got smashed in the last election. None care for your ideas. You remind me of Neville Chamberland. You're an appeaser and appeasers are destroyers of countries. And i am an Aboriginal. My family have been over here for so long. I have lost all connection with my ancestors back in eurotrashland. plus i would have physically changed. So i am an Australian and you new Australian need to realize that there is such a thing as an Australian who is 100% white. |
10:00pm 25/09/13 Permalink
All the more reason to send them back. Not only do they disrespect our laws by coming here illegally they ignore the consequences for breaking those laws. No I mean how exactly do you send them back once they resist? What are the consequences? Are those "rich Americans' given huge welfare payments plus top notch medical treatment like dental etc that Australian citizens have to wait years for? Or are they put back on the first available plane?Yeah that's right Source? |
12:15am 26/09/13 Permalink
No I mean how exactly do you send them back once they resist? What are the consequences? I honestly don't care. Do it by any means possible. Not one government seat would be lost. Source? www.commonsense.com |
12:26am 26/09/13 Permalink
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q72/s720x720/73613_10202629433436102_807124582_n.jpg
A cool Photoshop to be sure. |
08:25am 26/09/13 Permalink
Nahh infi, you got to accept it is kinda cool. Sure the writing may be dodgy but common have some fun you old fogy.
|
08:33am 26/09/13 Permalink
www.commonsense.com So, no source then? You sure it wasn't some TT or ACA story that was torn to bits my media watch? It was, wasn't it? |
09:37am 26/09/13 Permalink
Making boats a military issue is clever (in a slimy politician sense), at any point they can go "matter of national security" and not tell anyone anything.
|
09:49am 26/09/13 Permalink
And people are animals and animals don't like different animals. Leopards and lions are cats, But you don't see them living together do you? Because they are different.I can't figure out any other way to take this than pure race elitism, so I don't really see any reason to pay attention to anything else on this subject that you say, ever, if this is the premise on which you base all your arguments about immigration |
09:59am 26/09/13 Permalink
So, no source then?You sure it wasn't some TT or ACA story that was torn to bits my media watch? It was, wasn't it? So you are saying that an American who is caught over staying ISN'T sent back to the U.S? That they given the same perks as illegal immigrants who arrive via boat? All because i couldn't be arsed to copy paste the relevant government department website? Where is your source for this claim? |
10:53am 26/09/13 Permalink
I can't figure out any other way to take this than pure race elitism, so I don't really see any reason to pay attention to anything else on this subject that you say, ever, if this is the premise on which you base all your arguments about immigration I don't see how. I never said one race was better than another race. I said that races are different and some are incompatible and when one starts living with another, one has to change. It's natures law, biology 101. and there is 10,000 yrs + of human history to support it. Funny how if an evangelical was to say that humans are in anyway different to animals people would be rioting in the streets. yet those same people chose to ignore our animal instincts when it suits them. Humans aren't the only animal with borders. And 99% of those animal borders/boundaries are to keep out animals of the same species. I am not an elitist, i am a scientist. |
11:04am 26/09/13 Permalink
I can't keep track of who is door and who is GA, they all sound alike.
|
11:13am 26/09/13 Permalink
Except you have 1 major flaw to your comparison of animal and human. A human being is significantly more intelligent than other animals and has the capacity to self-regulate behavior by analyzing our own thoughts and actions and altering them accordingly. We have sapience. This is why your argument using biology 101 is flawed as we also have philosophy and psychology. This point alone is why humans need not accept racism. Your comments also highlight that perhaps philosophy should be taught in schools as a prime subject. |
12:18pm 26/09/13 Permalink
A human being is significantly more intelligent than other animals and has the capacity to self-regulate behavior by analyzing our own thoughts and actions and altering them accordingly. a human being? of course. The human population as a whole though? not so much. The libitarian utopia is not a realistic reflection on the general behaviour of humans as a whole. |
12:31pm 26/09/13 Permalink
The human population as a whole? Yes. Each individual has the capacity to alter their behavior away from the masses. Their is no excuse for racism, or for poor behavior at any rate (excluding acute mental illness).
|
12:44pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Except you have 1 major flaw to your comparison of animal and human. A human being is significantly more intelligent than other animals and has the capacity to self-regulate behavior by analyzing our own thoughts and actions and altering them accordingly. We have sapience. This is why your argument using biology 101 is flawed as we also have philosophy and psychology.This point alone is why humans need not accept racism. Your comments also highlight that perhaps philosophy should be taught in schools as a prime subject. Ironically that is a very un-intelligent post. How we "self regulate" is based on our animal instincts. Everything we do is based on our animalistic behaviour. . you're still trying to separate us from nature, this time by saying that "hurpie durpie. Me no animal cause me got brainz'" Sorry to say but that doesn't make a difference. You know Stephen Hawking? Glorified monkey. Einstein? 1% of dna away from being a full blown chimp. Our intelligence is guided by our animal brain. My flawless argument also has history on its side. Even your argument even puts history on myside. |
12:46pm 26/09/13 Permalink
The human population as a whole? Yes. Each individual has the capacity to alter their behavior away from the masses. Their is no excuse for racism, or for poor behavior at any rate (excluding acute mental illness). I assume you're not talking about my post. |
01:10pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Mo makes a video that explains everything
|
01:15pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Making boats a military issue is clever (in a slimy politician sense), at any point they can go "matter of national security" and not tell anyone anything. But they are telling everyone, everything with weekly press conferences. All that has changed is that it's not daily. But as usual, the butthurt brigade creates a fantasy world and pretends something is happening that isn't. "ERRR MERRR GERDD THE COALITION AREN'T REPORTING ANYTHING" It's like their brains shutdown and they self brainwash into believing something that is fictional. Must be some sort of mental illness. I assume you're not talking about my post. I wouldn't respond to Tollaz0r! at all anymore. He creates fake, delusional things that you have never ever posted and then claims you said it. He did it to me further up in this thread. |
01:22pm 26/09/13 Permalink
But they are telling everyone, everything with weekly press conferences. The facts: "THE Abbott government says it won't let the media know if asylum-seeker boats have been turned back to Indonesia." Sources: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/christmas-island-administrator-jon-stanhope-warned-over-talking-about-boat-arrivals/story-fn9hm1gu-1226725251862 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/government-won27t-reveal-when-boats-turned-back/4975742 As for how effective that will be: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/people-smuggler-ridicules-scott-morrisons-silence-on-boat-arrivals-20130924-2ub2z.html (The summary is that it is pointless, the people on the boats just use mobile or satellite phones, they don't need to listen to press conferences. If that is the case, why are they refusing to give this information to Australians?) |
01:51pm 26/09/13 Permalink
But they are telling everyone, everything with weekly press conferences. All that has changed is that it's not daily. But as usual, the butthurt brigade creates a fantasy world and pretends something is happening that isn't. "ERRR MERRR GERDD THE COALITION AREN'T REPORTING ANYTHING"From the ABC article that Malthius posted, it sounds like you are right - they are still reporting stuff relating to the boats. What they are NOT reporting is just minor detail stuff, like how effective they are at stopping the boats, because they're not telling us how many are getting sent back. So it all sounds pretty above board and transparent, unless you actually are interested in trivial and boring details like, how many boats are stopped. Further, I imagine reports that only include mention of how many boats actually make it to the shore will really help deter other potential boat people who are wondering if it's a good idea to come to Australia on a boat. He creates fake, delusional thingsOK, MurdochMediaConspiracy |
02:59pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Oh, cool you have studied Genomics too. In which case you would certainly know that a '1% difference' in 3 billion base pairs of the human genome compared to 2.7 billion of the Bonobo includes a significant amount of information. In fact that difference is part of the reason why we know there is a difference. Those differences are also the reason why we can point at a behaviour and say, No sorry that behaviour is not acceptable for a range of reasons of which we can meticulously list and discuss. In no way am I separating us from nature, in no way am I saying that we are not animals. What I am saying is that we have a far, far, far, far greater capacity to modulate our behaviour for the better of both our individual self and for humanity as a whole. |
03:36pm 26/09/13 Permalink
04:44pm 26/09/13 Permalink
(The summary is that it is pointless, the people on the boats just use mobile or satellite phones, they don't need to listen to press conferences. If that is the case, why are they refusing to give this information to Australians?) would you also like to be advised every time the gov declines a visa? |
05:12pm 26/09/13 Permalink
would you also like to be advised every time the gov declines a visa? When the liberals say they are going to stop the boats telling us how many they have stopped, sounds like a good idea. If they came out and said something like "In the last two weeks we have turned back 15 boats and only five have got through compared to last year when twenty one boats got here and none were turned back." People might feel like they are actually doing what they campaigned on. By not bothering to tell us it could be construed they haven't actually been able to do what they said they were going to do. |
05:55pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Also, yes I have a suspicion Pornopete has a greater understanding of this legislation then the Prime Minister of our Country. to be fair, based on some of the mutterings of our new overload and grand priest the right honourable abbott, it couldn't be to hard to have a greater understanding, cause if his understandings are reflected by what comes out of his mouth, palmer would have made a better PM |
06:14pm 26/09/13 Permalink
If we are talking about facts then how do we establish the refugee credentials of someone who comes with nothing and has destroyed all of their documents? UNHCR will side with the refugee's claims right? How can they lose! The Aussie taxpayers foots the bill.So you're claiming it's some sort of conspiracy on the part of the UNHCR to let in illegitimate refugees boosting that number up to 90.5%? There's this other guy on the forums who likes to claim conspiracies are real based off no evidence, his name is Faceman. You're just going to have to accept the fact that the people who arrive by boat are mostly genuine refugees. It is incredibly devastating to your argument but it's the truth. If I were you, I'd use it as some sort of learning experience. I'd at least come up with some new bulls*** reasons because claiming that it's a conspiracy is weak as piss and makes you look a little crazy and dumb. |
07:09pm 26/09/13 Permalink
I am saying the unelected public officials who are not even part of the Australian Government have no incentive to rigorously test the claims. it costs them nothing to let one or a thousand through. All care and no responsibility. They don't have to be careful with Australian taxpayers money because they are not Australian public servants.
|
07:19pm 26/09/13 Permalink
I know what you're saying, you think the UNHCR is just rubber-stamping claims and letting everyone in no matter how flimsy their story is. This is an extraordinary claim, so requires extraordinary evidence. Seeing as though you literally have never posted evidence for anything you have posted ever I don't expect it to see any here.
If they are just rubber-stamping everyone, why don't 100% of people make it through? It would just be simple case of having a good sob story wouldn't it? Everyone doesn't make it through, 9.5% are blocked, so that proves that some sort of selection process takes place and that there is criteria to meet to get through it. There would be people getting through who shouldn't, and there'd also be people getting blocked who shouldn't. No system is perfect. I just thought I'd say that because I know you love your strawman arguments, and figured your next post would be 'So you are saying that the system is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong?' or something as dumb as that. |
07:29pm 26/09/13 Permalink
I honestly don't care. Do it by any means possible. Which would include what? |
07:39pm 26/09/13 Permalink
I know what you're saying, you think the UNHCR is just rubber-stamping claims and letting everyone in no matter how flimsy their story is. This is an extraordinary claim, so requires extraordinary evidence. Seeing as though you literally have never posted evidence for anything you have posted ever I don't expect it to see any here.If they are just rubber-stamping everyone, why don't 100% of people make it through? It would just be simple case of having a good sob story wouldn't it? Everyone doesn't make it through, 9.5% are blocked, so that proves that some sort of selection process takes place and that there is criteria to meet to get through it.There would be people getting through who shouldn't, and there'd also be people getting blocked who shouldn't. No system is perfect. I just thought I'd say that because I know you love your strawman arguments, and figured your next post would be 'So you are saying that the system is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong?' or something as dumb as that. The UNHCR has nothing to lose if it approves a borderline case or a thousand of them. They are not accountable to any government and as far as I am able to ascertain national governments do not have a right to appeal the decision. Pretty sweet gig knowing the after you have paid a human trafficker $10,000 you know you have a 90% chance of being declared a genuine refugee, and can increase your chances if you turn up with nothing. The Pacific Solution is a great deterrent but TPVs are really what's needed. I would also prefer our own government to be determining the claims in their own right. If you were a global government body issuing loans to people with other people's money i.e. Sovereign nations and you knew the sovereign nation could not come back to you and had to accept your decision, there is really no incentive knock back loans. Just give every applicant a loan. That's all I see happening here. Once again we see Australian sovereignty usurped by international laws and we become powerless to control our own borders. It is time to take back control and show human traffickers that their illegal business model will no longer work. |
07:56pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Imagine; A sovereign government deciding who will come to the country.
|
08:08pm 26/09/13 Permalink
The UNHCR has nothing to lose if it approves if it approves a borderline case or a thousand of them. They are not accountable to any government and as far as I am able to ascertain national governments do not have a right to appeal the decision. The Courts have nothing to lose by finding against the government in constitutional cases. An Arbiter can't stand to lose or gain anything in making a decision, that's the point. Seems bizarro that you would suggest that them not standing to lose anything in someone reduces their decision making ability. It clearly enhances it by the near universal adoption of a neutral judiciary in constitutional democracies around the world. Our own government determining rights that are conferred by international agreement makes even less sense infi. If we want to do that, just pull out of the UNHCR, we are a sovereign nation and completely within our rights to do so. The whole reason this is contentious is that we want to soak up the international good will of being part of the program without actually having to take on any of the obligations it imposes. |
08:25pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Seeing as though you literally have never posted evidence for anything you have posted ever I don't expect it to see any here.One day you will learn that rhetoric and LNP slogans are not evidence. |
08:36pm 26/09/13 Permalink
The Courts have nothing to lose by finding against the government in constitutional cases. An Arbiter can't stand to lose or gain anything in making a decision, that's the point.Seems bizarro that you would suggest that them not standing to lose anything in someone reduces their decision making ability. It clearly enhances it by the near universal adoption of a neutral judiciary in constitutional democracies around the world.Our own government determining rights that are conferred by international agreement makes even less sense infi.If we want to do that, just pull out of the UNHCR, we are a sovereign nation and completely within our rights to do so. The whole reason this is contentious is that we want to soak up the international good will of being part of the program without actually having to take on any of the obligations it imposes. I would be fine with exiting the convention. We are being played like suckers. TPVs work in the meantime. |
08:37pm 26/09/13 Permalink
You're pretty much the last man standing in the anti-refugee crowd who isn't a troll account or bats*** insane, and your final conclusion is that the genuine refugees getting through are in fact not genuine and are only getting through via some UNHCR conspiracy to grant people who don't deserve it refugee status because *reasons*.
|
08:44pm 26/09/13 Permalink
I would be fine with exiting the convention. We are being played like suckers. TPVs work in the meantime. You aren't though because you don't like the decision making process of the existing convention. It clearly can't be left exclusively to states to say they are complying with a convention, it requires transparent oversight. And for the record states can contest findings of the UNHCR. I don't really see how we are being played. If we agree to the UNHCR it means complying with their definition of refugee rights, not some other definition that is currently convenient for us. |
08:53pm 26/09/13 Permalink
The UNHCR does not have "controlling Australian borders" in its objectives. Its objective is approving refugee claims, which it does 9 times out of 10. Sounds like a cool story.
As to the original story, towing back boats does not interfere with indonesian sovereignty but they are getting mighty shirty about it. Methinks they want to get rid of the refugees and the people smugglers. They have ramped up their rhetoric. |
08:54pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Its objective is approving refugee claims, which it does 9 times out of 10Which until you post evidence indicating otherwise, is because 9 out of 10 people are genuine refugees. |
09:03pm 26/09/13 Permalink
Explain to me why the UNHCR would have that as an objective. (note also that 9 out of 10 boat arrivals, not 9 out of 10 applications. People who fly here and claim refugee status after the fact have a much lower success rate.)
Refugees are allowed to cross boarders, and we, by being signatories to that convention, agree with that proposition. If you don't want that exception pull out of the UNHCR easy. What you are suggesting is roughly the same as letting Iran determine if it is meeting its obligations under the IAEA. Being a part of the convention means surrendering a degree of sovereignty to them. If you are uncomfortable with that there is nothing wrong with it but you can't have it both ways. |
09:03pm 26/09/13 Permalink
So you are saying that an American who is caught over staying ISN'T sent back to the U.S? That they given the same perks as illegal immigrants who arrive via boat? All because i couldn't be arsed to copy paste the relevant government department website? Where is your source for this claim? I'm not saying anything. I'm asking where your source is for the claim that refugees are "given huge welfare payments plus top notch medical treatment like dental etc that Australian citizens have to wait years for?" |
10:38pm 26/09/13 Permalink
the UN is such an easy organisation to get into they probably recruit at centrelink. Being a world class respected organisation means they can probably just let lts standards slide and rubber stamp whatever so everyone gets to go home early - no one would care. Mhmm
or maybe u can check out: http://www.un.org/en/employment/ Tho alan jones and ACA are reliable creditable sources but well done on being such a good alt account for,,, someone,,, chero. Thats amusing stuff. |
11:16pm 26/09/13 Permalink
the UN is such an easy organisation to get into they probably recruit at centrelink. Being a world class respected organisation means they can probably just let lts standards slide and rubber stamp whatever so everyone gets to go home early - no one would care. Mhmm oh yeah totally, not like the UN would ever coverup prostitution and human trafficking rackets or anything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower http://www.bolkovac.com/ |
11:22pm 26/09/13 Permalink
but well done on being such a good alt account for,,, someone,,, chero. Thats amusing stuff. You lost me. Who's with the what now? |
11:36pm 26/09/13 Permalink
You know if abbott became the second adolf hitler i am sure infi would be cool with that....../sigh
|
12:04am 27/09/13 Permalink
Godwin's Law achievement unlocked^^
|
12:05am 27/09/13 Permalink
someone was talking alt accounts up there in the thread somewhere if u read back thru it. they seemed to be referring to your account seemingly belonging to someone from around these parts
i found it amusing |
12:08am 27/09/13 Permalink
I would be fine with exiting the convention. We are being played like suckers. TPVs work in the meantime. I'm not sure that exiting the convention would make much difference. People smugglers are rather adept at lying to asylum seekers in order to part them from their money. TPVs may work but they're for the morally bankrupt, and likely contravene the convention. See Temporary Protection Visas: The Bastard Child of the One Nation Party and summary conclusions of Article 31 of the UNHCR. Also, I like how you say that we are being played by suckers. I think the below picture is an even better representation of a race of people who we "played for suckers." I'm sure that will only elicit a DILLIGAF response from you. http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/d82/ab7/097/resized/aboriginal-meme-generator-problem-with-boat-people-we-had-that-problem-too-3e0dd2.jpg |
12:50am 27/09/13 Permalink
You lost me. Who's with the what now? You are an alt account, you couldn't have made it more obvious. |
02:15am 27/09/13 Permalink
That is the dumbest meme ever. Its not 200 years ago so things that were apparently perfectly fine back then certainly arent now. Throwing that meme up painting british colonisation as though it is the same thing we are faced with today it utterly retarded. To be quite honest using australian natives in order to try and make some piss weak point over boat people is pretty f*****g disgusting.
Its actually imho kind of showing a pretty high dregee of ignorance of the issues they have had to deal with over the passed 200 years. Mind you if an aboriginal tossed that at me as a bit of a dig at average white aussie id cop it sweet. |
02:25am 27/09/13 Permalink
ah Jim and MurdochMediaConspiracy (if that is your real name) i see.
So u perhaps believe that the number of posts somehow equals validity? Or equals a better say or a more dominant position based on times posting? If not what is it that you are saying exactly? Because i will give u a hint for free: GA refugees And your UN Allowed us to land here so get used to all these "new accounts". Joaby landed here, and we followed him. Now we are all one big happy family. Let me give u another clue: the white supremacist lines from your certain new posters are not jokes and MO is an outback country hick who will stir issues just to make conversation. Apart from that Im sure we will all have an interesting conversational future together and if u need any more clues on the nature of refugees please stop by to ask your questions im sure we can help you out. |
02:26am 27/09/13 Permalink
To be quite honest using australian natives in order to try and make some piss weak point over boat people is pretty f*****g disgusting. Thanks for the laugh but you're totally missing the point. They copped it sweet and certainly had to deal with some extreme atrocities over those 200 years, some of which they're still learning to cope with (and for which the previous government actually apologised for - something this government or the previous Liberal one before it would never (ever) have done. It's time we learnt to do the same in accepting that those seeking asylum is going to be the norm and not an anomaly that has to be stopped. |
08:35am 27/09/13 Permalink
The indigenous did not have a comprehensive tax and welfare system.
|
10:00am 27/09/13 Permalink
No, instead they had other strong cultural systems which were no less valid then your precious taxes and welfare. |
10:18am 27/09/13 Permalink
oh yeah totally, not like the UN would ever coverup prostitution and human trafficking rackets or anything Yeah and comparing that to systematic covering up of UNHCR 'conspiracies' to dump outrageous quantities of refugees is a totally valid thing to do. Sheesh. Dude if you have any not 'bats*** insane' objections I'm all ears. But the 911 truthers rejection of refugee policy is going to struggle to be very convincing. |
10:42am 27/09/13 Permalink
Lols door accusing people of alternate accounts
|
10:55am 27/09/13 Permalink
So u perhaps believe that the number of posts somehow equals validity? Or equals a better say or a more dominant position based on times posting? Certainly not. You had many thousands of posts on GA, but most of them were laced with dumb. The difference here is, you're dealing with intellectuals and not your average bieltanman. Wait till you guys see the stuff he posts between 3AM-6AM. |
11:21am 27/09/13 Permalink
Yeah and comparing that to systematic covering up of UNHCR 'conspiracies' to dump outrageous quantities of refugees is a totally valid thing to do. Sheesh. i was making a driect response to the naive point below. read more than one post please. the UN is such an easy organisation to get into they probably recruit at centrelink. Being a world class respected organisation means they can probably just let lts standards slide and rubber stamp whatever so everyone gets to go home early - no one would care. Mhmm and as to No, instead they had other strong cultural systems which were no less valid then your precious taxes and welfare. and an immigration office? what a ridiculous comparison. modern nation states have borders and government and need to control the inflow and outflow of people in accordance with their infrastructure planning and social safety nets. i always have a laugh when someone tries to trot out the old invasion day analogies. |
11:34am 27/09/13 Permalink
You know if abbott became the second adolf hitler i am sure infi would be cool with that....../sigh lol - I am speechless. |
11:49am 27/09/13 Permalink
Lols door accusing people of alternate accountsHmmm, I've been re-regging and using alts for three years now and it makes me look really silly... what to do? I know, I'll just start accusing other people of doing the same thing! It's bound to work! |
12:07pm 27/09/13 Permalink
So it all sounds pretty above board and transparent They are choosing to, that can now change without notice, and its not like OUR government would ever act in its own self interest. thats for other governments around the world, not our glorious leaders. grant people who don't deserve it refugee status because *reasons*. because they pay extra to try and sneak in? while avoiding all other available countries. FPOT: Hmmm, I've been re-regging and using alts for three years now and it makes me look really silly... what to do? I know, I'll just start accusing other people of doing the same thing! It's bound to work! hehe, irony. Those differences are also the reason why we can point at a behaviour and say, No sorry that behaviour is not acceptable for a range of reasons of which we can meticulously list and discuss. then why on earth is religion still around? its all well and good for the individual, but that doesn't stop the conflict that is generated from mass stupididy. mob mentality is real after all. So u perhaps believe that the number of posts somehow equals validity? Or equals a better say or a more dominant position based on times posting?I think he was infering that you're account is much more likely to be a troll account. as 16 posts doesn't really show much commitment to the community around here. |
12:51pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Especially when he writes like Fpot and copies Fpots tactics and jumps on the "You're an alt account Door" bandwagon so quick.
Very suss. i always have a laugh when someone tries to trot out the old invasion day analogies. Hahaha same. Classic QandA one liners that get dropped as a last resort in a debate. |
01:52pm 27/09/13 Permalink
i was making a driect response to the naive point below. read more than one post please.You brought up that example of wrong-doing as evidence against a completely separate and unrelated instance of wrong-doing (UNHCR falsely granting refugee status). Something illegal that has been done in the past isn't evidence for this new and completely different thing you have dreamed up. It's to be quite blunt, stupid as s*** to even insinuate that it is. government and need to control the inflow and outflow of people in accordance with their infrastructure planning and social safety nets.The same infrastructure and safety nets you piss and moan about being shackles of over-regulation crippling our economy? I think the real highlight of your posting is the sheer inconsistency of your arguments. You'll froth against something till you're knee deep in your own spittle if it suits you, but then a few minutes later will support it if the situation requires it. |
01:52pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Especially when he writes like Fpot and copies Fpots tactics and jumps on the "You're an alt account Door" bandwagon so quick.I think you're suffering from every persecution complex in the book. See the thing is, everyone knows who you are. It isn't just crazy old me who is on to you now, it is literally everyone. The difference between you and I is that people have met me in real life. People know that I am not some loser who needs to create alt accounts to argue for him. infi and I don't get along, but there is no way I would ever accuse him of using an alt, it's not in his nature and I know that. I'd be willing to bet he would say the same thing about me. You on the other hand, no-one knows. You're a mysterious, lonely little weirdo who crops up with a new name from time to time posting the exact same s*** that you always have. The reason no-one knows you is because who in their right mind would want to? Your accusations just reek of absolute desperation, and I'd almost call them the final piece of your puzzle but I bet you'll be able to surprise us all with just how bat-s*** insane you really are. Never stop posting bro. |
01:59pm 27/09/13 Permalink
some random poster above suggested that the UN is a bastion of ethics and it was nigh impossible to get a job in there i provided proof to the contrary.
The same infrastructure and safety nets you piss and moan about being shackles of over-regulation crippling our economy? if they are going to be implemented by government and a society which obviously wants them then they need to be implemented in an orderly manner. what does my opinion on over-regulation matter if our society actually wants these controls? it is not ok (and it is not good planning) for public health systems, roads, water supply, schools and other forms of critical infrastructure to be overloaded by poor planning. and it is not ok to have a safety net intended for australian residents being bled dry by random arrivals, as the budget and the tax system has not planned for that. fpot really does come up with some of the most fairy tale-like dream scenarios i.e. just whack another 100,000 refugees in the mix, she'll be right mate, nothign will change. it's a primary school level understanding of maths and budgeting - quite unfortunate really when trying to speak about adult subejcts. |
02:06pm 27/09/13 Permalink
02:12pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Certainly not. You had many thousands of posts on GA, but most of them were laced with dumb. The difference here is, you're dealing with intellectuals and not your average bieltanman.Wait till you guys see the stuff he posts between 3AM-6AM. Cherocha said you were bad at Train Simulator 2013. Constant Train wrecks. |
02:15pm 27/09/13 Permalink
i was making a driect response to the naive point below. read more than one post please. Yeah I know in the the following line of comments about refugee determinations by the UNHCR
Seems pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that we are victims of some UNHCR conspiracy, or that the UNHCR has a direct interest in approving refugee claims. Would be fairly sensational if that were true, I think some evidence would need to be produced. I think more likely is that some insane victim complex is at play where by the UNHCR, refugees and people smugglers are somehow out to get us. |
02:41pm 27/09/13 Permalink
then why on earth is religion still around? its all well and good for the individual, but that doesn't stop the conflict that is generated from mass stupididy. mob mentality is real after all. The idea of mob rule (and mob mentality) has been around well before the 19th century. It is old thinking but recently its being challenged. There is new ways of looking at crowds, flocks, gatherings, etc of people. Of mob mentality. The old way of looking at mobs or packs or crowds was that they were dangerous often violent things. Brute and brawn but with little mind or intelligence. An example put forth by Elias Canetti's in his book: Crowds and Power (1960) look at: dealing with the dynamics of crowds and "packs" and the question of how and why crowds obey rulers. Canetti draws a parallel between ruling and paranoia... how people form mobs and manipulate power. He was german and he looked back at all those german crowds and pioneered lots to do with mass psychology. But being german he had to deal with some bad past issues connected to crowds - rallies, book burnings, mass persecution etc The French sociologist-anthropologist Gustave le Bon also didnt like crowds. He said that they were like "independent organisms but ones that were intellectually weak and ruled by base emotion". Le Bon was influenced by the rise of democracy in his day (1841-1931), outraged that ordinary people (rather than an elite) had come to wield cultural and political power. Ah Revolution. So thats the old thinking. The new thinking emerging is that crowds actually exist and operate in the opposite light. Authors like James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds (2004) challenges the ideas that when people gather en masse, it can only be trouble in the form of rowdy, violent mobs determined to upset the social order. He says that crowds are often smarter than an elite few, and better at problem-solving, innovation, making wise choices and imagining the future. The paradox of crowds, though, Surowiecki argues, is they are only smarter than an elite when independence is fostered within their constituent parts - wise crowds don't work on a problem together but make individual assessments and then aggregate and average the results. A good example is the internet. Like a big "group think". While bloggers or forum posters act as individuals, they can also operate as a remarkable collective intelligence, such as through search engines, (or this forum) where open-source information is disseminated - hopefully accurately - when they converge on subject matter. It is, indeed, the wisdom of crowds. The negative is that it is very easy to fall in love with the decentralised structure of the internet and the more tightly we become linked to each other, the harder it is to remain independent. We are shaped by the crowd, one we can't even see. In The Smart Swarm, author Peter Miller explains that we don't have to surrender our individuality when we are subsumed by a crowd. He forms his view by looking at the natural world - ie. bees, fish etc and how they interact. Michael Crichtons 2002 novel Prey also looked at the intelligence of a crowd or swarm. Both at offense and in defense. IT a great read about developments in science and technology; in this case, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.wiki Agent-based computing is especially interesting. So no you cant just blame humanities "poor behavior" simply on "mob mentality". And as far as religion goes perhaps because it is crowd sourced some of religions teachings and wisdom is actually pretty good. But while talking about mobs and crowds lets think about the crowd aboard a people-smuggling boat far out at sea, packed with human beings. Overcrowding scarcely describes it. Sometimes there are 100 people when there should be 30. There is much vomiting, sanitation is dire, people cannot change position once squeezed aboard and, with women and children usually crowding below deck, it is they who perish first if a vessel sinks. Remind you of people traveling to Australia on another s***** leaking wooden boat? The 1st fleet? These are not rich people "shopping" for a new home. They are desperate people who endure the unendurable and risk their lives to get here. Often they have family already here but they cant get a visa to join them and the situation where they come from can no longer be held off. They have to leave. Its all well and good to say "well they should wait, possibly years, for the visa application to be green lighted and not try to sneak into Australia" but would you do that if the government was going to imprison you for no reason or have you and your family killed for no reason? Like those who come from Iran, Afghanistan, sri lanka? I think if u saw an opportunity to escape and keep your family safe you would take it no matter how desperate and even if it meant u had to sell everything you own and borrow for everyone you know. So i quoted / stole lots of my post from an interesting article i recently read about crowds and mobs etc in the Age which can be found at: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/theatre/melbourne-festivals-the-crowd-20130912-2tmev.html |
04:21pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Would be fairly sensational if that were true, I think some evidence would need to be produced F*** the truth. It's way more exciting to pretend Australia is at the mercy of a tyrannical UN pro-refugee consipracy than the boring reality that they simply process refugee claims and award them refugee status if they are genuine. |
06:10pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Seems pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that we are victims of some UNHCR conspiracy, or that the UNHCR has a direct interest in approving refugee claims. Pretty much 100% incorrect here. I never once suggested the UN was involved in some sort of conspiracy. The other random suggested the UN had high integrity and I proved it does not and that it has been responsible for some reprehensible conduct under its watch. Using Occam's Razor the simplistic explanation is almost always the correct one and in relation to the 90% success rate of applicant it can easily be explained as follows: - all care no responsibility attitude; - unelected decision-makers answerable to no one; - sheer volume of work; - easier to process an approval than it is to prove and process a rejection; - difficult and cop a lot of heat in rejecting an applicant who brings no evidence; - have to take an applicant's testimony on face value in the face of no contravening evidence; - immensely more likely to get an appeal from an aggrieved applicant than from a national government - fighting an appeal from an applicant would be time consuming, easier to approve application - typical public servant attitude. I am subject to the same problem with some Qld Health officials at the moment. They approve certain care applications from individuals in my industry simply because for them to reject those applications would cause more work. There is no conspiracy its just typical laziness of an organisation that has no personal loss to incur and no chain of accountability. |
07:09pm 27/09/13 Permalink
There is no conspiracy its just typical laziness of an organisation that has no personal loss to incur and no chain of accountability. That's a cool story. |
07:23pm 27/09/13 Permalink
- all care no responsibility attitude;
so are the judges who found peter slipper innocent.
yes the australian 20k against the world wide 40m is just too much.
You have suggested there is no appeal process, so this is illogical
no evidence to a claim would mean a rejection
courts do this all the time. If somebody is lying under oath they are committing a crime. You would need to establish that some significant percentage refugees are lying about their actual circumstance.
you have previously argued that there is no right of appeal. If governments elect not to use their right of appeal it probably means they don't have a good chance of proving the claim is illegitimate.
Where somebodies legal right are on the line this the case categorically.
to dumb to actually address. Your rambling inconstant unhappiness with the decision making process again is more evidence of some delusional victim complex. |
07:31pm 27/09/13 Permalink
So you think Occam's Razor (that when presented with multiple hypotheses the simplest explanation is usually the correct one) for why people from disadvantaged countries with corrupt governments are granted refugee status is some multi-pointed pile of bulls*** and not that they are actually genuine refugees. I don't think you know how Occam's Razor works, friend.
Here's something that's been kind of confusing me. Why would someone who is doing well for themselves flee the country in the first place? That's what you've been claiming right? That they're in their designer clothes and sunnies and can afford to pay people smugglers thousands of dollars to put them on a boat. Why would they leave if everything is fine? Are you suggesting that they would completely uproot from their extended families, their jobs, their homes and their community and risk their lives on a perilous journey just so they can come here and be lazy? Or get things slightly better than they do in their home country? If things were all peachy for them and they wanted to come here, why wouldn't they just migrate here the legal way? I am subject to the same problem with some Qld Health officials at the moment.So again you are claiming because thing is a, that b which is completely unrelated to a in anyway is also a. Here's some Occam's Razor for you, the explanation for this unprecedented amount of cognitive dissonance and circular arguing bulls*** about refugees is because you are a racist c***. It's not only the simplest explanation, it's also the only explanation. http://i.imgur.com/jPBClO7.jpg Remember, savagery is a part of middle-eastern culture, and savagery is all they understand. |
07:41pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Why would they leave if everything is fine? usually because their home town is a poor s***hole and they want to upgrade. Once word spreads that there is this place rumoured that gives away free housing and first world standard healthcare FREE, where you can great free benefits and form ghettos with your friends and relatives who have also managed to bribe their way there; where you are free to practice your bigoted misogynist religion while lecturing the rest of the country how racist and discriminatory their country and government is, the news travels fast and everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. It sounds like a wonderful place. My mind still boggles at how those barbarians could blow their local police officer up with an RPG. Animals. |
08:06pm 27/09/13 Permalink
yep and by signing the UNHCR we said those are valid reasons to leave your country and come to ours.
Not one of those things are economic, they are all political and that is something refugees are allowed to escape. |
08:29pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Especially when he writes like Fpot and copies Fpots tactics and jumps on the "You're an alt account Door" bandwagon so quick. That was a reply to ruleofbooks. I'm the one you were accusing of being an alt account. We are both from GA. You get confused quite easily. I hope I've cleared things up for you. Certainly not. You had many thousands of posts on GA, but most of them were laced with dumb. The difference here is, you're dealing with intellectuals and not your average bieltanman.Wait till you guys see the stuff he posts between 3AM-6AM. "Just wait you guys, I'm like totally going to fight him down at the park after school, you should all come and watch, it'll be sick!" You sound like you're trying to offer up rim jobs by referring to posters here as "intellectuals", when in reality you're probably just trying your best not to get ushered out of another internet community door after so many years of revealing yourself to be a smarmy, abusive, immature, egomaniacal psychopath who's prone to thesis-length emotional trainwrecks and delusions of grandeur. |
09:07pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Infi, as a paying member (who will probably get government contracts ... conflict of interest) of the LNP has that comment been approved by the prime minister?
|
10:06pm 27/09/13 Permalink
Doesn't have to Obes, I can say whatever I want, this isn't the Labor party....
|
11:38pm 27/09/13 Permalink
But we all know the LNP has standing orders that any comment must be approved by party HQ before going to the media / being said?
Liberal party gags candidates from community forums http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/liberal-party-gags-candidates-from-community-forums/story-fnho52ip-1226699394092 Albrechtsen Weirdly Silent As LNP Candidates Denied Freedom Of Speech By LNP indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/albrechtsen-weirdly-silent-as-lnp-candidates-denied-freedom-of-speech-by-lnp/ that is pre election but you think its been lifted? Before you respond make sure you check with party HQ that what you are about to say is sanctioned |
12:53am 28/09/13 Permalink
neither of those are standing orders, merely calls for discipline fromm candidates so that the campaign message does not get confused.
compare to the Labor Party Rule that you must not vote against caucus decisions on the floor of parliament. if you do you are liable to expulsion from the party. |
01:20am 28/09/13 Permalink
You sound like you're trying to offer up rim jobs by referring to posters here as "intellectuals", when in reality you're probably just trying your best not to get ushered out of another internet community door after so many years of revealing yourself to be a smarmy, abusive, immature, egomaniacal psychopath who's prone to thesis-length emotional trainwrecks and delusions of grandeur. Look at all that anger. You are getting really defensive, merely showing that you find my opinion valid. I'm trying to think of someone who talks like you. I mean really, look at your post. You found a big word 10 years ago and stuck with it big time dude. I'm really easy to get along with. I've been running clans, guilds, and gaming communities since BF1942, meeting plenty of great people along the way. The difference is, you're not one of them, and after meeting as many people on the internet as I have over the years, I can see a knobend from a vast distance. As much as you portray yourself to be some form of intellectual, you are far from it. You don't know anything - everything you post is mere opinion about subjective crap. Who is a terrorist, who is an asylum seeker, what is a good movie or good song. Besides cleaning carpets for a living man, what do you actually know? Don't say "Awh I've been overseas rah rah rah" - anyone can do that. What you did was akin to someone paying for a photoshoot and thinking they are a model. I'm seriously yet to be surprised by your academic knowledge after all these years. I think you hide behind big words because you lack any real substance or intellect. TLDR: Dumbass, lol --- Edit: I think the Pacific Solution should be metrosexual wannabees such as Chero move to Thailand to play with their ladyboys while truly academic refugees are allowed into the country to further the country. Everyone wins. |
09:41am 28/09/13 Permalink
Excellent, boats are being turned around and asylum shoppers returned. Operation sovereign borders is well underway!
Come on baby let the good times roll. . Once word spreads that there is this place rumoured that gives away free housing and first world standard healthcare FREE, where you can great free benefits and form ghettos with your friends and relatives who have also managed to bribe their way there; where you are free to practice your bigoted misogynist religion while lecturing the rest of the country how racist and discriminatory their country and government is, the news travels fast and everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. This x10 especially " free to practice your bigoted misogynist religion while lecturing the rest of the country how racist and discriminatory their country and government is" In other news, more asylum shoppers have died on leaky boats from countries not in conflict while passing numerous safe countries. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/asylum-seekers-drown-on-way-to-australia/story-fncynjr2-1226728862846 The asylum-seekers told rescuers they were heading to the Australian territory of Christmas Island. The passengers were from Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen. |
11:13am 28/09/13 Permalink
Edit: I think the Pacific Solution should be metrosexual wannabees such as Chero move to Thailand to play with their ladyboys
|
01:03pm 28/09/13 Permalink
part of the problem that is used (as to why we keep saving these boat in Indonesia waters) is that they lack the SAR ability to rescue the boats
once aussie SAR have done the rescue, the Indonesians dont wont our rescuers returning the rescued to Indonesia so, my solution is simple, redirect some of the millions we give them and use that to set up a great SAR program, gifting them some equipment (no different that what we are currently doing now for their military). currently part of the promise that the people smugglers can sell, is that if the boat comes under trouble, that the aussie's will rescue them. (in fact not announcing the details of the deaths that this government is doing, is properly aiding them) yes this solution doesn't help the asylum seekers, but there are avenues they can take other than boat (which is the problem, unless the aircraft they fly on start crashing all over the place) |
01:52pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Refugee boat sank overnight, dozens drowned, 22 mostly children confirmed dead.
Abbott ignored all questions put to him about it this morning, and apparently literally ran away from reporters (as in legged it). Class act Mr Prime Minister!
No enquiries about the loss of the vessel have been acknowledged by the Government as yet. |
01:57pm 28/09/13 Permalink
I think we have been looking at this wrong
ignorance is bliss, the LNP are just trying to make us happy |
02:05pm 28/09/13 Permalink
That a good idea copuis. I reckon it would be worth a go.
|
02:09pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Look at all that anger. You are getting really defensive, merely showing that you find my opinion valid. I'm trying to think of someone who talks like you. I mean really, look at your post. You found a big word 10 years ago and stuck with it big time dude.I'm really easy to get along with. I've been running clans, guilds, and gaming communities since BF1942, meeting plenty of great people along the way. The difference is, you're not one of them, and after meeting as many people on the internet as I have over the years, I can see a knobend from a vast distance. As much as you portray yourself to be some form of intellectual, you are far from it. You don't know anything - everything you post is mere opinion about subjective crap. Who is a terrorist, who is an asylum seeker, what is a good movie or good song.Besides cleaning carpets for a living man, what do you actually know? Don't say "Awh I've been overseas rah rah rah" - anyone can do that. What you did was akin to someone paying for a photoshoot and thinking they are a model.I'm seriously yet to be surprised by your academic knowledge after all these years. I think you hide behind big words because you lack any real substance or intellect.TLDR: Dumbass, lol---Edit: I think the Pacific Solution should be metrosexual wannabees such as Chero move to Thailand to play with their ladyboys while truly academic refugees are allowed into the country to further the country. Everyone wins. That's all very interesting. And look, you didn't even need to wish violence or death on anybody, and refrained from mocking people's dead relatives. Small steps. |
02:50pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Haha the old question dodge, tone's trademark
Tone pls |
03:59pm 28/09/13 Permalink
LNP, The Ignorance is Bliss Government.
|
04:24pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Kevin Rudd didn't dodge any questions, he just answered them with a string of big sophisticated words that didn't actually answer the question, but let the reporters get confused long enough for him to scream "AND WITH THAT FOLKS, I'V GOTTA ZIP"
|
05:15pm 28/09/13 Permalink
I always enjoyed Kevin's programmatic specificity.
|
05:17pm 28/09/13 Permalink
06:02pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Look at all that anger. You are getting really defensive, merely showing that you find my opinion valid. I'm trying to think of someone who talks like you. I mean really, look at your post. You found a big word 10 years ago and stuck with it big time dude.I'm really easy to get along with. I've been running clans, guilds, and gaming communities since BF1942, meeting plenty of great people along the way. The difference is, you're not one of them, and after meeting as many people on the internet as I have over the years, I can see a knobend from a vast distance. As much as you portray yourself to be some form of intellectual, you are far from it. You don't know anything - everything you post is mere opinion about subjective crap. Who is a terrorist, who is an asylum seeker, what is a good movie or good song.Besides cleaning carpets for a living man, what do you actually know? Don't say "Awh I've been overseas rah rah rah" - anyone can do that. What you did was akin to someone paying for a photoshoot and thinking they are a model.I'm seriously yet to be surprised by your academic knowledge after all these years. I think you hide behind big words because you lack any real substance or intellect.TLDR: Dumbass, lol---Edit: I think the Pacific Solution should be metrosexual wannabees such as Chero move to Thailand to play with their ladyboys while truly academic refugees are allowed into the country to further the country. Everyone wins. Bailey Jay is the only true Queen of the Interwebs. F*** off poser. |
07:53pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Borders shifted, plates trembled, mountains erupted, can't buy a booket.
|
11:25pm 28/09/13 Permalink
Got no time for Emo lesbians in picachew onsies either....to save you asking.
|
11:45pm 28/09/13 Permalink
01:00am 29/09/13 Permalink
Bailey Jay is the only true Queen of the Interwebs.F*** off poser. You wasted your single post per 86,000 seconds on that? Fanboyism at it's finest. |
10:48am 29/09/13 Permalink
usually because their home town is a poor s***hole and they want to upgrade. Na their towns are fine that's how they earnt all that money to buy sunnies and luxury, country-hopping cruises on people smuggler boats so they could come here and jump queues, which is unAustralian. Right? |
01:48pm 29/09/13 Permalink
Some people even in s***** towns can get rich by working and saving, believe it or not.
|
02:05pm 29/09/13 Permalink
Not if they spend it all upgrading to Australia.
|
02:17pm 29/09/13 Permalink
That's the intended outcome.
1. Accumulate a meager amount of savings sufficient to bribe officials and pay human trafficker. 2. Arrive at Australia broke and free of any burdening documents (like identification) 3. Wait out assessment period in cruel, harsh conditions, perhaps fit in some rioting or destruction of government property. 4. Get assessed as genuine refugee, start receiving government benefits, free housing and free health care. 5. Profit. |
02:23pm 29/09/13 Permalink
So after people have worked and saved their way to a life of comfort, their next logical move is to throw it all away and risk their life on a trip to Australia for that sweet sweet $15000 a year welfare cheque (after they have been detained for a year).
So which place did you get this asylum seekers are actually rich people from? Bolt? Murdoch Media? A Current Affair? Because it is really stupid and doesn't even stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. |
02:24pm 29/09/13 Permalink
1. Accumulate a meager amount of savings sufficient to bribe officials and pay human trafficker. |
02:44pm 29/09/13 Permalink
risk their life on a trip to Australia It's no different than jumping from the trade towers except the fall is a long boat ride. (It's risky business staying there, how dangerous would Australia have to get for you to justify selling everything you have so you can pay someone to allow you to float across the ocean in a typically non-seaworthy wessel, only to then risk being sent back?) |
03:03pm 29/09/13 Permalink
The government might have even ignored a distress call made from the vessel - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/28/asylum-boat-sinks-off-java-indonesia
|
03:33pm 29/09/13 Permalink
The government might have even ignored a distress call made from the vessel - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/28/asylum-boat-sinks-off-java-indonesia tbf it was in indo's waters as i said before indonesia lacks SAR (be that out of choice is another question) so we keep getting called, and once they are on aussie boats it seems that it is then our problem |
03:38pm 29/09/13 Permalink
One of the passengers, a Lebanese man, had reportedly lost his pregnant wife and eight children in the disaster. F*** they must really want our dole. |
03:51pm 29/09/13 Permalink
So the man is just a straight up coward then? |
03:54pm 29/09/13 Permalink
ph33x they are perfectly safe at home, they are making stupidly dangerous journeys to steal our health services and dole, derr Cennoes should show the dole bludgers the efforts these people go to. Most dole bludgers don't even like handing in their fortnightly forms. Edit: Tony Abbott's wife should learn to use a seat belt. |
03:55pm 29/09/13 Permalink
The government might have even ignored a distress call made from the vessel the vessel was 50m from Indonesian mainland. Wouldn't want to go interfering with Indo sovereignty now... |
04:15pm 29/09/13 Permalink
Not sure if this has been posted yet but here it is anyway, make of it what you will
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=121_1380418929 |
04:58pm 29/09/13 Permalink
Boat full of invaders sinks on the way to Australia 21 reported dead, Many still missing.. IE: Shark food wow |
05:08pm 29/09/13 Permalink
The government might have even ignored a distress call made from the vessel The NSA would have heard the distress call too. Let's pull them into this. |
05:08pm 29/09/13 Permalink
So the man is just a straight up coward then? What questions does he have to answer? All the information is out in the open. |
09:34pm 29/09/13 Permalink
hey lets just pretend that this planet is the only thing in existence and we all just be separate here on earth and fight over imaginary borders forever and ever like stupid idiots
|
10:42pm 29/09/13 Permalink
imaginary borders so how do you figure out who pays taxes |
10:43pm 29/09/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Dumb |
12:24am 30/09/13 Permalink
So many new alt accounts jumping in.
|
02:49am 30/09/13 Permalink
the vessel was 50m from Indonesian mainland. Wouldn't want to go interfering with Indo sovereignty now... wasn't it more like 25nm, (closer to 50kms) |
03:55am 30/09/13 Permalink
So the Indonesia military is now assisting asylum shoppers and their boats. No surprise there.
|
11:46am 30/09/13 Permalink
hey lets just pretend that this planet is the only thing in existence and we all just be separate here on earth and fight over imaginary borders forever and ever like stupid idiotsreckon I'll be on the first rocketship outta this stupid place. |
11:48am 30/09/13 Permalink
So the Indonesia military is now assisting asylum shoppers and their boats. No surprise there. "Is now"? They have been involved as long as this has been happening. Indonesia is a very corrupt country. (Source: http://worldjusticeproject.org/publication/rule-law-index-reports/rule-law-index-2012-2013-report ) The local corruption is part of the complexity of this issue and why we need to work with Indonesia on this. In fact, to return the the original theme of this thread, this is why we need to not piss off Indonesia's government. Getting local corruption under control, at least on this issue, will be a much bigger step towards stopping people smuggling than anything else we can do. Buying back boats, towing back boats, buying back mobile phones, paying people to spy for us, not holding press conferences - it is all pointless when the military and police in the local village are being paid by people smugglers to help them get people onto boats. |
12:01pm 30/09/13 Permalink
interesting how its all going for the new government. Especially the cone of silence routine.
She (Julie Bishop) and Abbott have under-appreciated how Indonesia views the boat people problem. To Jakarta it is not about people smuggling per se. It is about being respected as an emerging power whose views are influential and which deserves a loud voice in finding solutions to regional problems. Some in Australia believe, wrongly, that the boat people problem is Jakarta's fault and that justifies the flexing of muscles around Indonesian territory. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/abbott-must-move-quickly-to-rebuild-indonesia-relationship-20130929-2umer.html#ixzz2gLJn1CwZ So far the new government has made a dog dinner of the whole issue - especially not commenting on the recently dead. From the same article: Given Australia's involvement and Abbott's return the boats and boat people policy, a prime ministerial statement should have been forthcoming as a mark of respect for humanity and Indonesia. Yet Abbott declined to comment. His silence has been noted... So what business opportunities are we talking about? statements by members of the National Party about Indonesian proposals to buy landholdings in Australia. In the latter case, Indonesians are well aware that Chinese, Britons and other foreigners already have similar large holdings, and would be quick to identify discrimination. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/30/politics-brinksmanship-abbott-heads-indonesia so the fuss is that Indonesia wants to buy Australian land to run cattle / agriculture projects but they want the business to be fully 100% Indonesian. As the greens leader said: Christine Milne said Mr Abbott would have to clarify with the Indonesian president exactly what Australia meant to do when intercepting boats and turning them around. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/09/30/02/04/tragedy-mars-abbott-s-maiden-foreign-trip So bit of a pickle for Abbott. We have let other nations buy up Australian land but we have political parties (Nationals / greens etc) against it. So they are wanting Abbott to say no to Indonesia. But abbott also wants (needs) Indonesia to work with us on important regional issues like refugees so he can keep his election promise of "stop the boats". |
01:40pm 30/09/13 Permalink
wasn't it more like 25nm, (closer to 50kms) Apparently the boat started having trouble 25 (or 50) kn from Indo shore. Then afteer it turned back made it to within 50 meters of shore before sinking. Here is a picture (by someone else) of what roughly 50kn looks like from the assumed departure point. Red line top left corner; http://i.imgur.com/K1Rz2gV.jpg |
02:02pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Downer’s statement that Indonesian boats are breaching Australia’s sovereignty is simply not true under international law I missed that international law that says anyone can come and go through your border. A boat or a plane must have permission from a sovereign government to enter its territory. The entire concept of sovereignty is that a national government controls its own borders, including the movement of immigrants and goods and vehicles. Leftwing academics love this concept of an overarching world government and "internatinonal laws" that can somehow impose on sovereign countries obligations infringing their sovereignty but it just does not work that way. if the UN is unhappy with the way Australia treats their immigration detention and assessment they could always expel Australia from the convention, but then no one would be able to buy their way into Australia at all and the people smugglers would go broke - and the academics would not like that. As to the issue of Indonesian purchasing of Australian land it would be an amateur politician who confuses the two issues. Foreign investment is critical to Australia's economic growth. Just as Australia continues to trade with China while it abuses human rights, and Japan while it whales illegally, so too would Australia while Indonesian keeps permitting a corrupt human trafficking racket. The Government is not as silly as the ALP who shut down live cattle exports and crippled our farmers. Business is business. And the Greens wouldn't know the first thing about business. |
02:11pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Leftwing academics love this concept of an overarching world government and "internatinonal laws" that can somehow impose on sovereign countries obligations infringing their sovereignty but it just does not work that way.Tell that to Iraq! It's pretty funny for you to criticise academics for not paying attention to how the "real world" works, while ignoring the fact that actually, in the real world, there are often serious problems with failing to comply with how the rest of the world community (or any belligerent nearby neighbour that is militarily competitive with you) thinks you should be behaving. Also, I couldn't find where you quoted that original line from - it's not mentioned (as far as I can see) in this thread. Googling shows it only shows up in this Conversation article. Did someone delete something or are you just starting an entire new conversation? If so it would have been nice to include the source for the quote that you're replying to. |
02:27pm 30/09/13 Permalink
I quoted from RuleofBookz just above.
Tell that to Iraq! Countries that have the ability to defend their borders should be allowed to defend their borders. Every now and then, a big enough a****** comes along, who gets too greedy and then he finds himself out of the palace and hiding in a ditch. |
02:29pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Doesn't have to Obes, I can say whatever I want, this isn't the Labor party....orl? A public servant sacked for using Twitter to criticise the Federal Government's immigration policy will continue to fight her dismissal in the courts. So Abbott runs from reporters, and staff members do in fact get sacked for criticising the government. What the f*** is going on here? |
03:02pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Public servants are paid to deliver the policy of the government of the day. They are not paid to criticise the policy in public.
|
03:07pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Who says she wasn't delivering the policy? Looks like it was her private twitter account to me. I thought you were all about people being able to do and say whatever they want during their private time? Surely you aren't going to pull the olde infi trick of just changing your whole view on something to suit a particular argument at a particular time?
|
03:12pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Did she tweet on her own personal time? If so then I think it's unfar dismissal. Without knowing the full facts of the case though.
Unless of course she was stupid enough to tweet confidential/classified/personal information. |
03:20pm 30/09/13 Permalink
There is an implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in employment law and if either party does something to undermine that mutual relation of trust and confidence then the employment relationship is destroyed and grounds for the injured party to terminate the contract. There is extensive case law about what employees can be sacked for doing in their private time, but if their actions are likely to be associated with their employer (even if they are not wearing a uniform) then there is a good chance they are doomed.
|
03:20pm 30/09/13 Permalink
So yes, you are just going to suddenly change your view to suit your LNP worship, cool.
By the way, did anyone else notice how the LNP's claims of Labor's economic incompetence and Labor waste was a complete lie? In fact, it showed the largest year-to-year fall in the budget deficit ever. I'd be feeling pretty stupid right now if I spent the last year frothing away at how bad of an economic state Labor had got the country in. I'd be very quickly coming up with some bulls*** reasons to try and make myself look better. Hmmm, it would probably be smartest to not actually read the article, and just post something completely wrong and nonsensical like pink batts or mining boom and then ignore all replies to it. Ignorance is bliss after all. |
03:29pm 30/09/13 Permalink
So yes, you are just going to suddenly change your view to suit your LNP worship, cool. I am not making this s*** up, it's established law. If you are collecting money from your employer you can't bag your employer. I'd be feeling pretty stupid right now if I spent the last year frothing away at how bad of an economic state Labor had got the country in. never mind we are going to have to raise our debt ceiling again, it's all good. of course labor were f*****g useless. they presided over deficit after deficit and were responsible for a littany of waste and preventable deaths resulting from their sloppy stimulus plans. Libs have to come in and fix it all up as per usual. |
03:43pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Well I guess if you aren't clever enough to come up with new bulls*** reasons on such short notice, you could just keep on frothing instead.
|
03:52pm 30/09/13 Permalink
I am not making this s*** up, it's established law. If you are collecting money from your employer you can't bag your employer. I don't suppose the term "whistle blower" means anything to you. You and murdoch really like stating something is against laws you obviously haven't read and understood. Leftwing academics love this concept of an overarching world government and "internatinonal laws" that can somehow impose on sovereign countries obligations infringing their sovereignty but it just does not work that way. if the UN is unhappy with the way Australia treats their immigration detention and assessment they could always expel Australia from the convention, but then no one would be able to buy their way into Australia at all and the people smugglers would go broke - and the academics would not like that. That could be the most massive bonehead thing I have ever heard, excluding the usual murdoch froth. *We* signed the conventions, *we* said we would accept the obligations. My god even the slightest bit of reading about international law would reveal that. F*** assumed obligations is how the international system works, surrendering of a degree of sovereignty is exactly how it works. Imagine pulling out of the UNCHR or the UN entirely. I think infi, it would be more than just the 'leftwing academic elite' who would be upset. *psst* your insane victim complex is showing. |
04:22pm 30/09/13 Permalink
*We* signed the conventions, *we* said we would accept the obligations. My god even the slightest bit of reading about international law would reveal that. F*** assumed obligations is how the international system works, surrendering of a degree of sovereignty is exactly how it works. Enforcement of a convention is done in two methods: - international adjudication, if the Convention provides for and if the Nation has subjected itself to adjusication and enforcement e.g. International Criminal Court. - enforcement via domestic law - requires domestic law ratifying the Convention e.g. unfair dismissal laws in 1994. As to how a country observes its obligations under a treaty there is no hard and fast rule apart from other countries looking sternly at them. Look at Japan under the whaling treaty. I don't suppose the term "whistle blower" means anything to you. To obtain benefit from Whitsleblower protection you usually need to be making a public interest disclosure relating to official misconduct or maladministration. The public servant in question is reporting on her disagreement with government policy. |
04:32pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Er Wrong.
The main source, the really big one is 'Customary International Law'. That's where the majority of treaty making conventions come from its also the source of the rules of war etc, and you can be bound by it without having signed anything, if the ICJ can make a determination that the state in question was opinio juris. (as a prime example I would direct your attention to the case of Nicaragua v the USA, in which, the USA, was determined by its actions to be opinio juris and under the sway of convention.) Treaties such as the Montevideo Convention on the definition of a country etc, are usually just writing down what was already known. for the record article one is the accepted definition of sovereignty. I missed that international law that says anyone can come and go through your border. A boat or a plane must have permission from a sovereign government to enter its territory. The entire concept of sovereignty is that a national government controls its own borders, including the movement of immigrants and goods and vehicles. Let me quote the international law for you The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Note the lack of borders or control of them. So yeah you missed it but the rest of the world sorted it out in the 30's The UNHCR might be a little confusing because it has convention in the name, but it is a treaty and we signed it. If you are signing up to something which restricts your ability to act in certain ways, explain to me how that isn't giving up a bit of your sovereign autonomy? Moreover those two methods are just the one method. You can't have ratified a treaty, and be bound by it without having enacted enabling domestic law. That is why there is usually a gap between signing and ratification. |
05:15pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Who says she wasn't delivering the policy? Looks like it was her private twitter account to me. I thought you were all about people being able to do and say whatever they want during their private time? Surely you aren't going to pull the olde infi trick of just changing your whole view on something to suit a particular argument at a particular time? if she worked at woolies and she went around telling everyone on twitter that woolies suck. Then woolies would be well within their rights to sack her. What is the difference here? |
06:02pm 30/09/13 Permalink
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. So nothing in that list screams out to you "border".... right.... You can't have ratified a treaty, and be bound by it without having enacted enabling domestic law. and thus the signatory country defines by their own domestic legislation how they are bound by the law. if the ratifying domestic legislation does not significantly comply with the terms of the treaty then the collective signatories can vote to expel a signatory. nothing yet in Australian immigration policy has triggered such a reaction so the only conclusion can be that the domestic immigration legislation complies with the UNHCR. Or have the UNHCR looked sternly at the Australia :s ?? uh oh If you are signing up to something which restricts your ability to act in certain ways, explain to me how that isn't giving up a bit of your sovereign autonomy? Sovereignty is not surrendered, countries voluntarily comply with the terms of Conventions because they want to: It is conducive to international trade, social policy and multilateral relations. A country can assert their sovereignty at any time (however other countries may have aircraft carriers and missiles to disagree with that, or trade sanctions etc). International law is not about compulsion it is about mutual agreement and who has biggest guns. if she worked at woolies and she went around telling everyone on twitter that woolies suck. Then woolies would be well within their rights to sack her. What is the difference here? that concept is too subtle for fpot |
06:05pm 30/09/13 Permalink
As to the issue of Indonesian purchasing of Australian land it would be an amateur politician who confuses the two issues. Foreign investment is critical to Australia's economic growth. Just as Australia continues to trade with China while it abuses human rights, and Japan while it whales illegally, so too would Australia while Indonesian keeps permitting a corrupt human trafficking racket. The Government is not as silly as the ALP who shut down live cattle exports and crippled our farmers. but we are not talking investment here. we are talking the wholesale 100% buy up of land and the use of the land, which includes things like water rights, that is opposed by the greens and the nationals. And when the nationals (in coalition with the Libs) and the greens (whom the Libs preference lower than Labor) agree on anything maybe that should trigger some bells http://www.smh.com.au/national/indonesian-land-buy-may-go-over-15m-hectares-20130924-2uca8.html Sure we have allowed other foreign power to do the same in the past but isn't it time we stopped it esp if we know the country that is buying the land to raise cattle will do so in an inhumane way? |
06:23pm 30/09/13 Permalink
So nothing in that list screams out to you "border".... right.... Notice how control of it is in no way important. The Vatican is a country but can't credibly say they are in control of their boarders. Most of continental Europe couldn't say to have the level of boarder protection we are capable of. I seriously doubt China can effectively control their borders with Russia and Mongolia. Pakistan and Afghanistan and India all have boarders they are not even completely sure where they are, but would you seriously suggest they aren't sovereign? Control of boarders is not essential and I would suggest not even really all that important to being a sovereign nation. and thus the signatory country defines by their own domestic legislation how they are bound by the law. if the ratifying domestic legislation does not significantly comply with the terms of the treaty then the collective signatories can vote to expel a signatory. nothing yet in Australian immigration policy has triggered such a reaction so the only conclusion can be that the domestic immigration legislation complies with the UNHCR. Or have the UNHCR looked sternly at the Australia :s ?? uh oh No they don't, if they fail to fully implement the treaty they can be found to be in breach of it, which doesn't immediately result in expulsion, precisely because it is better to have offending nations under the tent then off on their own. We just recently got blasted over our approach to refugees. In order to be part of an international agreement you absolutely give up the right to do what ever you want. That is a loss of freedom for the benefits of community. A determination by an international body into the validity of your laws is clearly a loss of sovereignty. if she worked at woolies and she went around telling everyone on twitter that woolies suck. Then woolies would be well within their rights to sack her. What is the difference here? Woolies may or may not be within their rights. I haven't studied employment law but I seriously doubt that LNP woman's case is open and shut. |
06:36pm 30/09/13 Permalink
esp if we know the country that is buying the land to raise cattle will do so in an inhumane way? The farms would be subject to Australian Laws and Standards. This statement feels like it was written to induce fear. Also, UK citizens are the biggest foreign land holders in Australia. |
07:12pm 30/09/13 Permalink
but unfortunately the recent history of live exports to Indonesian speak otherwise
we had control but it took 3rd parties to speak out and highlight issues also its better to hold on to our land and trade the industry produced of our land then just give 100% foreign corporates control just mine and the nationals and greens opinion |
08:28pm 30/09/13 Permalink
What do live exports and conditions of Abattoirs in a completely different country have to do with the management of farmlands in Australia?
Nothing. Just your xenophobic views of an entire different country because they (shockingly, not) have different standards to us. also its better to hold on to our land and trade the industry produced of our land then just give 100% foreign corporates control How about you start complaining about the USA/UK investment then?http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/08/29/1226706/976274-aus-news-file-foreign-investment.pdf Indo doesn't even make the graph. |
09:00pm 30/09/13 Permalink
their (shocking) different standards involve the inhumane treatment of the animals
how about u stop being a barbarian? because the whole live export thing was stopped for the very good reason that animals were being treated inhumanly and just giving that country the ability to buy up 1.5 million hectares of australian land seems a great waste when we can retain control of it and trade it to them |
09:20pm 30/09/13 Permalink
their (shocking) different standards involve the inhumane treatment of the animalshow about u stop being a barbarian?because the whole live export thing was stopped for the very good reason that animals were being treated inhumanly and just giving that country the ability to buy up 1.5 million hectares of australian land seems a great waste when we can retain control of it and trade it to them so if the best price a farmer can sell their land to another aussie is $1m they should be prevented from selling their property to a foreigner who is prepared to pay$1.5m? how does that respect property rights? foreign investment is what drives our country.... and then to add further damage to the farmer who can't sell their farm for top dollar they also have to cop arbitrary export bans every now and then? way to destroy farmers.... |
09:42pm 30/09/13 Permalink
We can't retain control of it. It's not ours to retain control of. It belongs to individual title holders. Not 'Us'
I support the strict enforcement of humane treatment of animals, as well as entering into agreements with farming groups not to sell to those that would violate those rights. What you propose though is neither reasonable nor fair. |
10:01pm 30/09/13 Permalink
Hay maybe ol Mate Tones has decided to not talk about the boats much because he thinks they were never an issue in the first place..
As Liberals (or any other 2 party opposition) would pretty much exploit any opportunity with any potential and run with it to get the ruling government out of office. The problem with doing that is, they make so much noise about issues when they get into power they have to dampen that noise down back down to its base level. Tones and his mates are just in the process of doing this dampening. They will be for a few months yet. The cycle repeats. Hopefully Clive's party has or will shake things up enough so that there are 3 major parties and the finger pointing about how bad the current government is wont be enough to win. Time will tell. last edited by Tollaz0r! at 23:06:00 30/Sep/13 |
11:01pm 30/09/13 Permalink
so if the best price a farmer can sell their land to another aussie is $1m they should be prevented from selling their property to a foreigner who is prepared to pay$1.5m? how does that respect property rights? foreign investment is what drives our country....and then to add further damage to the farmer who can't sell their farm for top dollar they also have to cop arbitrary export bans every now and then?way to destroy farmers.... Arbitrary export bans? Destroy farmers? Are you a real person? |
12:41am 01/10/13 Permalink
Wow infi.
That there is some confused thinking even for you. How bout if a farmer can not be bothered to play by the rules of society, he doesn't get to use society's roads, rail, ports or other benefits relating to running a farm in oz. So if he can work out how to live export to countries with issues around animal treatment with out using any of that public infrastructure, yay for him. Also there is a fair chance that the animals in question are actually being farmed on crown land (pastoral leases). p.s. it should also invalidate them for any form of drought assistance, and their farm should be treated as an import product (i.e. they want to live outside this society). |
09:29am 01/10/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Dumb |
09:54am 01/10/13 Permalink
Isnt this all irrelevant anyway because arent all the boats supposed to stop now since the libs got in?
|
10:35am 01/10/13 Permalink
Reminds me of the Goose that laid the golden eggs.
To sell off the land 100% to foreign powers seems like selling off the goose rather then just selling off the golden eggs here is some info on cattle cruelty especially on live export. What the industry is telling us and the reality of it is are two different things http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/stop-cattle-cruelty.php and an abc story http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3753039.htm the video in the last one is pretty awful and yes the Libs have announced that the every day reporting of boats will not happen again until they are back in opposition |
10:38am 01/10/13 Permalink
Isnt this all irrelevant anyway because arent all the boats supposed to stop now since the libs got in? no, the only thing that seems to be stopped, is information, and open dialogue |
10:47am 01/10/13 Permalink
It was pretty embarrassing watching Tony Abbot apologize to Indonesia for Labors mistakes, but i guess it had to be done =\ Atleast we now have a respectable Prime Minister.
He apologized for Labor starting the boats again via dismantling the pacific solution and he apologize for Labor banning live exports. It was hilarious the way he said it though "Panicking over a TV program" rofl. |
12:11pm 01/10/13 Permalink
A member of the Indonesian parliamentary foreign affairs commission has described the Federal Government's asylum seeker policy as "offensive" and "illegal". Obviously this member of the parliamentary foreign affairs commission has forgotten his own country's history of offensive and illegal political persecution. He probably needs a lesson or two on history. Someone should also remind him who supplements Indonesia's air force with Australian fighter and carrier jets, and of course AusAID. |
01:17pm 01/10/13 Permalink
Obviously this member of the parliamentary foreign affairs commission has forgotten his own country's history of offensive and illegal political persecution. We have our own history here, too. He probably needs a lesson or two on history.Someone should also remind him who supplements Indonesia's air force with Australian fighter and carrier jets, and of course AusAID. I always love this sort of thinking. Are you suggesting that our aid to a developing country should be influencing their side of the asylum seeker debate? How does that line up in your mind, with aid and assistance are we basically buying Indonesia? |
02:48pm 01/10/13 Permalink
