A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Ruddock resuscitates the boat asylum myth
|
Ah, the return of the living dead. Old habits die hard with Philip Ruddock. About as hard as Ruddock’s own progressive principles died when he had a sniff of ministerial power. He happily became John Howard’s go-to man in the demonization of asylum-seekers and the minister responsible for that high point in Australian public life, the reference to a boy locked up in Villawood Detention Centre as “it”. The Government’s “softening” of illegal immigration laws has now, according to Ruddock, produced a “pipeline” of 10,000 people a year trying to get to Australia. You know what goes through pipelines. Not people. Maybe water, at best, but more likely sludge, or some highly unpleasant chemical. Sewage, perhaps. Those 10,000 pipelines, we know, are of course not white people. Ruddock, like some of its colleagues, must be thoroughly flummoxed that Australians have thus far greeted the rise in boat arrivals generated by the Sri Lankan civil war and other regional conflicts with a reasonable amount of equanimity. It’s not like the good old days, when a single boatload of asylum seekers could be guaranteed to tap into that deep-seated Australian fear of invasion from the north by different-coloured hordes. The flow of arrivals via boat of course remains an entirely trivial immigration problem. If you’re obsessed about border control, you should be picketing our airports, where illegal immigrants and future visa overstayers arrive every day by the hundreds. In July last year there were 48,500 people in Australia unlawfully, and nearly all of them got off a plane. Philip Ruddock will tell you the Howard Government stopped the boats. But how’d it go stopping the other 95+% of people who aren’t supposed to be here? Well, turns out, not so good. In fact, so badly its Department stopped publishing the statistics in its annual report, and only properly resumed when the numbers started coming back down again after it had been replaced as Immigration Minister. There were 45,000 people in Australia unlawfully in 1996, when Ruddock first applied its tender ministrations to the Immigration portfolio. The following year they shot up to 51,000. A good start for Ruddock, but it was just warming up. Immigration stopped reporting the numbers for a couple of years, but when we next see them, in 2000, they’d climbed to nearly 59,000. And as we learn from the Department’s 2004 annual report, they’d peaked at 59,800 in the last months of Ruddock’s stint as minister. So it presided over a 33% increase in illegal immigrants. Nice work, and it didn’t even have a pipeline to help it. |
|
|
109 Comments
It occurs to me that these facts as stated by Bernard are broadly consistent with Ruddock actually being quite compassionate towards asylum seekers generally, while doing everything in his power to deter people smugglers. Just saying.
I have nothing but contempt for this person. I refuse to call him a ‘man’ as there are many of those who are decent human beings. I’d like to rip that Amnesty International badge out of his lapel, if he still has the gall to wear it. Who can forget the role he played during the Dr Haneef disgrace. During his last stint in Opposition, he opposed some ALP legislation as being against human rights???Just proves the saying, that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. I just hope I can avoid having to look at him, he really spoils my day - enough to curdle the milk in my coffee! He’s not only the champion of no human rights for those tortured people from other lands, who have to flee, some due to our murderous activities in their countries, he announces it like the front ‘walker’ at a funeral! I recall too, that dear little boy he referred to as “it’ not once (that could’ve been a mistake) but several times. Someone should tell him, that boy children are referred to as “he” - as they’re living human beings, to be loved, cherished and cared for; only inate objects are referred to as “it”? Yuk!
I am a little of the subject but not to far - I believe the immigration issue is why so many legitimate asylum seekers have to resort to illegal entry - I am happy to accept that most have legitimate reasons to seek asylum - particularly from Sri Lanka - but why can’t they be legitimate immigrants from the start.
BK, again I must agree.
I find Ruddock to be an unwelcome memory, mixed with my contempt for those who brazenly wasted money, distorted and invented facts and purposefully set about making life a misery for 5% of his Department’s case load of illegal immigrants and visa overstayers.
Australia’s reputation for fairness, if it ever existed, was totally destroyed by his bigotted, biased and discriminatory war against some of the most needy people in this world. Not content with changing the rules and ignoring basic human rights which are enshrined in internaational treaties, he then used the collective might of the armed forces to bully and harrass those in search of refuge, wasted a squillion dollars building “Detention Centres” (pig pens?) and buying the services of internationally recognised, overpaid corporate prison guards to watch over these hidden prisoners.
His party was voted out of office and I am disappointed to find that 2 years later he hasn’t changed his tune.
Let’s concentrate on the 05% and deal with the remaining 5% no more harshly than the rest. That is fair. That sounds more like my image of Australia.
Sorry, the last para should read:
Let’s concentrate on the 95% and deal with the remaining 5% no more harshly than the rest. That is fair. That sounds more like my image of Australia.
Mark Duffett: very generous - albeit potentially rational - analysis. But how do you account for Ruddock presiding over the egregious detention of children for appallingly long periods of time?
Yvonne, the phrase “legitimate immigrants” is misleading. They are legitimate, but they’re not really “immigrants”. Although providing a boat to facilitate the unauthorised arrival of five or more people in Australia is against the law and therefore illegitimate (it’s usually called people smuggling), the act of arriving on such a boat and claiming asylum from persecution is perfectly legal, and therefore legitimate.
John Howard knew that, but chose to mislead Australia for years with his “illegals” soundbite. And Kevin Rudd also knows it, which is why he’s quietly assented to granting Permanent Protection to 97 percent of those processed on Christmas Island so far this year. I’m pretty sure Rudd, that champion crusader for rectitude, wouldn’t reward lawbreakers, illegals, illegitimates, or whatever people call them.
They’re refugees, who become asylum seekers in the hope of having their refugee status formally acknowledged and accepted. They may become immigrants later, but they’re not primarily immigrants.
I guess your question also raises the perennial issue of “queue-jumping” - why can’t these people wait their turn? When we queue (say, at the deli counter) we assume the queue exists and we can safely find it, that no-one will shoot at us, rape us, or ethnically cleanse us while we wait, that no bribe will be necessary, and that if we wait patiently we will soon get our sliced ham and tub of olives.
None of these neat, orderly assumptions apply in the badlands of refugee world, which is more like a shambolic lottery than a queue. You can wait a decade, in squalid and dangerous conditions, and still not get your turn. Most Australians would last about a week before seeking an alternative way to rebuild their shattered lives and give their children a chance in life.
The desperate circumstances of their arrival (paying p/smugglers, unseaworthy boats etc) are adequate testimony to the depth of their desperation.
Ah, benfriisotoole, there’s a reason why I used the phrase ‘these facts as stated by Bernard’. I didn’t say that they were all the facts germane to the issue
Regardless of whether Ruddock personally feels sympathetic towards asylum seekers, his rhetoric whips up fear, ignorance, and hatred against them. If the last century has shown us anything, it is that polarising ideas and rhetoric can lead to great atrocities.
Bernard Keane writes: “… Australians have thus far greeted the rise in boat arrivals generated by the Sri Lankan civil war and other regional conflicts with a reasonable amount of equanimity. It’s not like the good old days, when a single boatload of asylum seekers could be guaranteed to tap into that deep-seated Australian fear of invasion from the north by different-coloured hordes.”
I wish it were true, but unfortunately recent Australian opinion polling doesn’t support this statement. Go to http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1148 and download the 2009 Lowy Institute Poll on foreign policy issues.
On page 5: “… a large majority (76%) of Australians said they were ‘somewhat concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ ‘about unauthorised asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat’. Just one-fifth (21%) said they were ‘not concerned’ “.
And on page 9: 39 percent of Australians think ‘large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into Australia’ pose a ‘critical threat’ ‘to the vital interests of Australia in the next ten years’. Admittedly that was in tenth place in terms of popular concern (paranoid lot, aren’t we?) but the 39% figure was up from 33% only last year.
Poisoned public opinion is one of the worst and longest-lasting legacies of the Howard government’s relentless campaign to demonise the most vulnerable of victims - the refugees. Howard and his tawdry succession of Immigration Ministers, for ten years or more, brilliantly implemented Joseph Goebbels’ three basic principles of successful propaganda: ignore the protestations of the intelligentsia, keep the message simple, and repeat it until your audience’s ears bleed. As a result, most Australians are still convinced asylum seekers are ‘illegals’, potential terrorists, children-overboard-throwers, and morally degenerate queue-jumpers.
Advocates for their welfare have a long, long struggle to turn that kind of public impression around.
Ruddock. Ruddock? Ruddock…. Ah yes, that Ruddock. I thought he’d gone away. Hasn’t he been deported yet, at least from Parliament?
10,000 per year is less than 10% of our planned annual in-take. No problem there.
I guess our real problem is finding the other 90% each year from among people who really want to be Australians, but not so much that they are willing to row the boat to get here.
This sort of reporting is precisely why I (a) continue to subscribe to Crikey and (b) think it’s the best media voice in the country right now.
Thanks Bernard - love you work.
Well now we know the answer. To all of those who thought Ruddock was just ambitious and did things he didn’t believe in to please his master (that Howard fellow) think again. He really meant the vicious things he did and said that made many of us ashamed of our government.
Amnesty were right in sacking him and the Australian people eventually got it right too.
Jenny
let’s work toward it after this hopeless opposition get the double dissolution they have been working so hard to get
10,000 pipelinees, that should read. Not 10,000 pipelines. Unless you’re a pipeline manufacturer. It was fine when it left my keyboard.
As you can see I’m focussing on the important stuff.
So the evil cretin Ruddock decides to raise his demonic voice to praise his disgusting antics, as directed by the equally evil Howard. That he still believes his shameful detention of kids, of seperating families, of driving inmates of the Howard camps insane, of inmates causing horrific self harm, this disgrace to call himself an Australian, attempts to tell this country his methods were the methods to deter those arriving by boat. Ruddocks methods would have not been out of place if here were wearing an SS uniform, leather boots and brandishing a whip with pistol at his hip.
Evil personified is what his name conjures up to me and my family. I despise him. This Govt is at least treating those seeking asylum with dignity and as fellow human beings. Stick that up your Liberal snout Ruddock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Poor old Philip the ruddock it is.
One day we will all (not just me for now) know that the psychopath is actually innocent of being a psychopath. The poor old psychiatrists will have to learn to deal with that first of course.
Real life played with real smarts is going to get tougher.
If as Bernard Keane suggests, Australians are equanimous about the marked increase in illegal boat loads of “regional” Afghanis to our waters, presumably we are are just as insouciant about the hundreds losing their lives enroute in people smugglers’ death traps?
As Derekn’Clive famously said “Bogies are not really very seaworthy”.
The other aspect pointedly ignored by by the ever balanced Mr. Bernard “Look at me, I’m righteously outraged” Keane is that these people are relatively wealthy by refugee standards and flying by jet to Sydney would be much cheaper but they specifically want to migrate to Australia as refugees because you know they will die if the don’t come to Australia and Australia alone…………
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
And then lots of Aussies went along with the fear of all those brown dangerous drowning boaties deserving what we dished out to them.
The Eulogy I delivered at my Mother’s funeral thanked the kindness and very tough natural courage of wonderful individual German people during the three years 1942 to 1945 in Geremany for helping my parents adequately to avoid freezing to death in winter (although I lost a sister that I was never to meet for this exact reason) or to be without food long enough to starve to death while they hid from and avoided the Gestapo, those people knowing that they would be shot dead with my parents if caught helping, and making it possible for me and my wonderful sister to be born.
They serve as the benchmark for humanitarian courage that we could aspire to when we graduate from fairy courage.
Surely the appropriate pronoun for the MP and previous minister is “it”, not “he”.
It’s a global world, and the Coalition better get used to the idea if they want to get back into power sooner rather than later. Most right-thinking people now believe we also, as a country, have an obligation to the fleeing peoples of the world, to mop up some of the collateral damage that is the blow back from areas of conflict.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t just fling open the doors to a rising tide of people because, at the end of the day, it’s better to help them solve their problems in their homelands.
There is something very intriguing about the Liberals. Just recently, Alexander Downer suggested in The Advertiser, Oct.12, that Winston Churchill, who ’ with his brave people, held out alone in Europe against the Nazis…’ should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. One of the reasons the Nobel Panel got it all wrong this year, according to the former Foreign Minister, was the fact that Mr. Thorbjorn Jagland is the chairman of the Noble Prize Committee.
And this is the (only) link between a Nobel Prize and Mr. Ruddock: Mr. Jagland, then the foreign minister for Norway, dared to wake up Our Dear Alexander, at 2 o’clock in the morning in 2001, audaciously demanding a Norwegian ship with refugees , ‘The Tampa’ to be accepted into the Australian port. No wonder that the same Jagland, Mr. Downer claims, ‘has made the worst decision in Nobel Prize history as he hated G.W. Bush and Barack Obama is an African -American….’You cannot help the fool’, concludes Alexander Downer.
Well, Ruddock, Downer…
Birds of the feather…
Old habits really die hard.
And refugees keep coming.
When is a true Liberal going to step up to the plate and metaphorically dynamite that old bigot and political opportunist out of his federal parliamentary seat of Berowra? They’re too busy fighting over safe seats as their ship sinks to do what the electorate really wants before they’ll vote for them again, and that’s get rid of the cancerous growths on their body politic.
“these people are relatively wealthy by refugee standards and flying by jet to Sydney would be much cheaper but they specifically want to migrate to Australia as refugees because you know they will die if the don’t come to Australia and Australia alone…………”
I’ve heard a lot of very stupid, very inaccurate, very mean-spirited things in my time… but I think that one might just take the cake. Well JamesK. A new low.
And I thought JamesK had hit the dirt track with his support of Ruddock when it was a Minister. Seems Low means lower in JamesK case, trash like that is best ignored, as I shall in future.
The idea that we could turn our backs on people fleeing the most desperate of circumstances, while ignoring the geniune ‘Economic Migrants’ who arrive by plane illustrates a complete triumph of politics over substance.
Its heartening to know many others see this as an embarrasment to Australia, and have damned the words and ideas of P Ruddock.
Good article Bernard.
OK, for all those who believe unauthorized arrivals should be stopped and sent back, lets pretend for a moment we all agree:
Even so, please explain why it was also necessary to mandatorily detain them in immigration detention facilities, with no effective time limit on processing their applications, so that processing times blew out to years.
With numerous adults shown to suffer mental illnesses following years of detention, and some detained children at risk of permanent developmental damage as a result. High incidence of se-xual abuse in some detention facilities.
This for people not accused of any crime. To arrive without authorization is not an offence, it just means the immigration status of the person has yet to be determined.
No accusation of crime means (and this was clarified by Ruddock) no right to legal representation, and (I’m not sure what year this came in) no right to judicial appeal against Refugee Review Tribunal decisions.
Even those granted Temporary Protection Visas (i.e. found to be legitimate refugees) were specifically denied any Centrelink support, including ESL training or jobfinding assistance. In one case Immigration officials walked into a Centrelink ESL class for TPV holders and ordered them to cease all such classes.
No matter what your opinion of letting unauthorized arrivals enter the country or not, does anyone think the above were necessary for people not accused of any offence?
What is it with the Zombie government? Is it that the current opposition is so desperately f*cked up that the dead have arisen and are seen by many.
Pete - if only it was just our backs we turned on asylum seekers but it was our navy.
Oh and today’s effort by our ABC (that shameless organ of The Left, Jamesk) refering to the Afghan refugee boat ‘deliberately blown up’ by its occupants even though the NT police couldn’t find enough evidence to charge anyone (though to be fair, and with apols to Vince Kelly, they can’t find there arse in the dark with either hand) and the matter will now go before the coroner, prejudicial, dumb wrong.
And Amnesty can get nicked too for keeping ‘it’ as a member
their arse - sorry
Thank you Arthur your point that arriving on a unseaworthy boat is legal makes my point stronger. Rather than luring those in desperate political situations into the clutches of people smugglers, and creating the impression that they are queue jumping - Australia should be focussing on improving our response and claim processing and cutting out the middle man. It is probable as a nation we can’t do this on our own - so where is the UN?
As much as the ex Governor General is the equivalent to a bovine sphincter you need to relax a little Bernard, ease up on the emotional rhetoric a little eh? Its not good for your health. The Howard government’s policies were immoral no doubt, however there is a reason they were focused on “boat people” (apart from of course the voter traction). Someone who overstays their visa is not a) endangering their life and the lives of their family to get here and b) paying organised crime figures for the privilege. People smuggling in this manner is a serious problem, exploiting people who are amongst the most vulnerable on the planet is something I personally abhor. Now I’m not defending Howards policy, but there is a huge difference people overstaying their visa’s and organised people smuggling, the latter of which being the point. Thus I have to wonder whether the whole foundation of this article is in fact a non sequitur?
P.S. ease up on the “yellow peril” line, that little chestnut missed the boat (pun intended) by about 30 years. Last year 72% of legal migrants came from “non white” nations, and that didn’t cause any “yellow peril” panic in the streets did it? By and large this nation is proudly multicultural, the dogma of the 50’s simply doesn’t stick any more. Its pure grade 3 schoolyard tactics to associate an opposite position with racism, (not to mention its demining to the Australian people), any half assed journo can do that. How about a well thought out argument that addresses the core issues next time?
oh thats funny Oblizzard, apologist, wrong but funny
(Edit)
Oblizzard, re “paying organised crime figures for the privilege”, please read Harvey’s post above. If they are “organized crime figures” only by definition of the fact that they’re organized, and they smuggle people which is a crime, then isn’t your description of them a bit of a tautology with nothing to say about whether they are really so evil?
And even if for the sake of argument we agree that smuggling is evil, what do you say about the way the smugglees were treated once they became legal wards of the esteemed Minister of Immigration, as I briefly discussed above, during the assessment process and even after being found to be legitimate refugees?
I should say “circular argument” rather than tautology. I hope you can see what I meant.
To me Ruddock epitomized everything that was evil, complacent and tiny-minded about the Howard government and its minions. Like a spectral axe or a hangman’s noose, Ruddock seemed to live his words. He was there pontificating about children overboard, Tampa, concentration camps, racism, people- smugglers, anything to lay down a false story. He had everyone who followed the Coalition behaving like a pack of hounds running after an aniseed trail. But the people in Deniliquin and Murrayville, Angaston and Koo-ee-Rup: The voters of denial, loved him. Also he appealed to our older and insidiously racist, northern European immigrants.
As Bernard says the thing which was most trivial about immigration was the amount of small boats bringing in refugees. It is analogous to handing out a corn plaster to attack gangrene. Although I’m not sure why people were worried about our near north.
Hell, at the rate that Melbourne is growing and Europe is dying I’d be surprised if it would be any less that ten thousand immigrants a day. Philip Ruddock would do a rant about small boats yet bring in the illegal ones while Airbuses full of immigrants legal or not legal, were flying in the doors. Ah but he helped to erase the truth.
Legalize drugs and people, take out the middle-man and-unlike the present Victorian State Government (John Brumby)-try to provide the infrastructure for them, the people that is.
SBH writes: “And Amnesty can get nicked too for keeping ‘it’ as a member”.
(a) How do you know it’s a member? Anyone, even a human rights abuser like Ruddock, can get hold of an Amnesty badge and wear it on its jacket lapel. And privacy legislation would prevent Amnesty from divulging members’ names, even if they wanted to, which they almost certainly don’t. (b) How would you suggest Amnesty go about retrieving the lapel badge from it? Write it a letter and politely ask for its return? Mug him in the street? Have you thought about the logistics of actually getting it off it? (c) Do you suppose the matter hasn’t been discussed within Amnesty (and dismissed as utterly impractical)? (d) Wouldn’t you reckon Amnesty’s 2.2 million members would rather the organisation use their money to pursue human rights causes such as making offenders accountable instead of wasting their time trying to get a badge back? (e) So Amnesty uses its membership fee to pursue it over human rights abuses it committed while in power. Kinda comical, in an ironic sorta way, no?
You become a member by filling in a form and paying a fee. You don’t have to meet any character tests. Phillip Ruddock did indeed join Amnesty International while he was a minister, but his membership was later revoked.
A lawyer who worked pro bono for Amnesty International told me she had been running an AI stall at some public event, when Minister Ruddock came along proudly wearing his Amnesty membership badge, stood behind the stall and started greeting members of the public in the name of the organisation. He basically shouldered her aside and took over the stall. She called AI management and they advised that Ruddock was not authorised to speak to the public on behalf of AI and to get him out of there. Ruddock ignored this. She called police, who attended but could not find any basis for moving the Minister on. Ruddock spent a few hours there and ruined Amnesty International’s campaigning that day. Later AI revoked his membership and demanded he return the badge (which remains the property of AI at all times) but Ruddock never returned it.
Editor: I thought people were obliged to adhere to the topic a little bit. I mean, what has the Nobel Prize and President Obama of the USA have to do with people smuggling?
People smuggling in Oz, that is.
The Libs are loosing the debate on climate change, cant take a trick on the GFC, doing appallingly in the polls - of course they are going to revert to their old racist scare tactics…..to try and scare the people into voting for them again…..unbelievable….they are an absolute disgrace - why doesnt Ruddock just leave politics and let some new blood in - hopefully someone from the Bruce Baird, Petro Georgio, Maris Payne camp……
VENISE - “To me Ruddock epitomized everything that was evil, complacent and tiny-minded about the Howard government and its minions.” Indeed! No wonder his daughter was ‘forced’ to leave the country?
JAMES MCDONALD - Excellent news! Now I will seriously consider becoming a member of Amnesty International - I wouldn’t while he was a member!
An experience with my eldest grand daughter who was about 7-8 at the time - she’s now a lovely young woman of just 16. She was staying with me and we were watching the evening news on the ABC. There was a protest at either Woomera or Baxter, which was most distressing, as people were covered in blood, and some little tots standing in the foreground with a ‘set look’ of fear or shock on their little faces - made my heart ache. My granddaughter said, ‘nanny, what have those children done?” I said, “nothing darling” and her answer stays in my head, she said, “then why are they in jail”? This young girl and her friend had a one day protest (she was still in primary school) and they wore tape over their mouths(when that young man on ‘Big Brother’ did.) I was very proud of her, and told her so!
Which brings me to this point. What messages are we giving to children by the horrific behaviours of the past government? How can we speak of human rights, justice, decency etc when they can see for themselves what hypocrites we are if we allow this to happen in our country - again? Kids will stand us up and question our so-called morals etc, and I’m glad they do! Keeps us honest, or it should do!
I must also confess to my own ‘brainwashing’? I once heard her tell whoever was on the TV at the time, “to get out of my nanny’s lounge room”? I came into the room to see Howard on the screen! I make no apology whatever! As I said, a very astute young woman!
Good article Bernard! Of course, the rest of the media in the country should hang their heads in shame for continuing with Howard’s lies. There’s no excuse for the ABC - none! Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states, that a person is entitled to seek asylum when they believe their life is in danger etc(look it up). It also doesn’t say, but if you arrive on a leaky boat you lose your rights to be treated worse than a dog! I’ve read in recent times, that many of those Navy personnel were so distressed by what they were asked/forced to do, that they resigned or took stress leave etc. About 6 Naval ships were involved in that travesty!
It’s amazing to think, that a few weeks ago, a man who’s now 100 was given a heros welcome when he met some of the Jewish children he rescued from Hitler. There were many people like this, plus those in the Resistance who saved lots from certain terror and death - they’re heroes, as indeed they are. Those who take risks and save Afghanis, Iraqis or people from Sri Lanka are demonised as ‘people smugglers’? Is because they take money? Because they take risks? Those who rescued Jews risked torture and a firing squad or worse? Demonising them allows govts from acknowledging the reality - that in too many cases, we’re part of those who these people are fleeing from, or we condone other ‘govts’ while they murder, rape and steal their land etc.
Makes you wonder doesn’t it?
That should read: Pronounced mean-spirited by the poisonously opinionated Chris Graham……
LIZ45: Who was forced to leave the country? Sorry, I appear to have lost the thread.
Australia currently accepts close to 13,000 asylum seekers per year.
If a greater percentage of these come from illegal boats (potentially even Mr. Ruddock’s future guesstimate 10,000/year under Rudd) paid for by financially advantaged people, then the poorer people who declare themselves legally at a UNHCR office and request refugee status are disadvantaged.
The latter peoples request to go to Australia is taken in to account but not guaranteed as opposed to the former requesting refugee status in Australian territory who therefore effectively queue jump the latter.
The queue jumpers risk death for themselves and their dependents and enrich a poisonous evil trade. It has been noted that there are often many UNHCR centres along their journeys to the Indonesian jumping off points; that they sometimes sojourn months or even years awaiting a suitable time to passage to Australia. The ABC have reported the perception that now is a good time to attempt these dreadful journeys They know the Rudd governemnt by name and what it means.
Indeed some are at times no more than merely economic migrants by another name.
Those who will drown or immolate will never be me each and every one of them thinks and such foolishness is confirmed by the evil people smugglers who tell them what to do when they are ‘intercepted’ in Australian territorial waters which is their stated aim.
The crew are returned after weeks/ months, their families enriched and the boats are scuttled.
JamesK, it’s an interesting point you raise about boat people being “financially advantaged”. I don’t know the stats, but numerous boat refugees from places like Iraq and Afghanistan have told how an entire extended family’s savings over many years would be expended to pay the way for just one family member to escape to a safer place. The person chosen would usually be young, male, able to speak the language, and generally the one with the best chance of making a new life there.
I’d be interested in finding out what countries-of-origin the 59,000 overstayers come from. In discussions on illegal migration there seems to be a level of implicit racism that these people are of the ‘darker-skinned’ variety, when from my reading it tends to be our guests from northern Europe and the UK that overstay their visas. (I also heard the rumour somewhere that the largest illegal population in the UK are Australians working while in the country as tourists.)
Having been through the depersonalizing and invasive immigration procedures for my wife who was unfortunate enough to be a ‘person of interest’ being Muslim (and initially refused even a tourist visa) I can quite comfortably that racism is alive and well in the department of immigration despite the fact that a) Australia needs immigration to sustain our economic development and b) the majority of Australians are first to third generation immigrants themselves.
@James McDonald.
There is no doubt about the abundance of human tragedy in this world.
These are actually difficult not simplistic matters. (EDIT) Cheapn’shallow is all too often the order of the day for leftists not actual human lives and suffering.
Why did the whole family of your example not go to an UNHCR camp/office?
Once recognised as refugees the whole family would be re-settled together though not possibly in their first choice country.
Are they refugees or not?
Otherwise Australia also has a very generous migrant programs.
@Andrew Schurgott
An overstayer is a non-citizen (of Australia) who remains in Australia after the expiry of their temporary visa. The largest groups of overstayers are from the UK and USA. Most came as tourists or on working holiday visas.
An unauthorised arrival is an individual who arrives in Australia without travel documents or a valid visa or with fraudulent travel documents or visa.
Not all unauthorised arrivals and only a very small proportion of overstayers apply for refugee status.
Year No. overstayers Total no. unauthorised arrivals No. unauthorised arrivals by sea (and boats) No. unauthorised arrivals by air
97 - 98 50,950 1,715 157 (3 boats) 1,558
98 - 99 53,150 3,027 921 (42) 2,106
99 - 00 58,748 5,870 4,175 (75) 1,695
00 - 01 60,000 5,649 4,137 (54) 1,512
01 - 02 60,400 4,842 3,649 (23) 1,193
02 - 03 59,800 987 0 987
03 - 04 50,900 1,323 82 (3) 1,241
04 - 05 47,800 1,632 0 1,632
05 - 06 46,400 1,654 56 (4) 1,598
06 - 07 46,500 1,523 135 (5) 1,388
07 - 08 48,500 1,476 25 (3) 1,451
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-02.html
VENISE - Phillip Ruddock’s daughter apparently felt forced to leave the country as she disagreed with her father’s stance on asylum seekers. It was covered in the media.
ANDREW SCHURGOTT - A big welcome to your wife. I hope a lot of people have made her feel at home here. My understanding is that those who come by plane and then ask for asylum are either from Great Britain or Europe - usually Anglo-Saxon or with lighter skins than Sri Lankans, Iraqis etc. There can be up to 60,000 at any time who’ve overstayed their visa. Usually, they’re allowed to stay in the community while their case is investigated - some may be detained?
And you’re correct about the accusation of racism in the Immigration Dept. A friend of mine takes in people who are on a permanent or ‘bridging visa’?. She has had a young man staying with her for a while now, and he’s studying I think. She’s a great person, and the stories she’s told me are just terrible. I felt ashamed - she’s been doing this for several years now. If Vivien Solon or Cornelia Rau were ‘dinky di Aussies’ they wouldn’t have been treated in such a horrific manner. Sexism and racism are alive and well here I’m sad to say!
I was thinking while watching the ABC News this evening, why are there so many still in detention on Christmas Island? Shouldn’t some of them be released by now? I thought the new procedures had a time limit re investigation etc for each person - 3 or 6 months?
Venise Alstergren
It was Alexander Downer who linked the Nobel Prize with ‘The Tampa’. And the Tampa was very much connected with refugees and the ‘people smugglers’ for that matter. Would you not categorise Mr. Jagland as a ‘people smuggler’? If not, why not??
Generally, it is a matter of empathy. Do we feel sorry for people who lost their homes and have no chance for insurance policy or we get very upset that they try to rescue their lives?
Venise,
The difference between you and me is that I am a Holocaust survivor and I have been a refugee… twice.
There will always be some blind talking about colours.
No need to wait months for out of date/massaged/manipulated figures from DIMIA or ABS. The passport control system run jointly by Customs & Immigration can show the overstay figures with 3 keystrokes, any time of the day or night. That also shows the current visa status (the general blanket “bridging”) of those who’ve applied for extension or asylum. Simple as.
Hi Andrew Schurgott, just to complicate the nature or our national prejudices … I recall an interesting week during Ruddock’s time when two refugee decisions were announced in the news about refugee applications.
The first was a group of West Papuans fleeing Indonesian occupation. They were Christians, they were also country folk, and they were also independence campaigners who claimed they had to run for their lives. Those people were deported after Jakarta said they wouldn’t be harmed. We don’t know what became of them.
The second decision announced that week was about a Javanese academic at the University of Indonesia. He was a Muslim. But more importantly I believe, he was an educated middle-class city-dweller who spoke English like one of us. Following an article he wrote for the papers in which he accused the government of extensive corruption, he found he stopped being invited to some parties and it was hinted to him that he might lose his job at the university. His refugee application was approved very quickly. Also, despite the rules I mentioned above about no job-finding support for TPV holders under Ruddock, this man was quickly networked into a well-paid academic position in Australia.
We are an extremely prejudiced nation and we apply these prejudices shamelessly in our immigration policies and practices. But how much of that prejudice is skin or religion and how much is a sort of “just like us” classism is hard to say. I’m not even sure if there’s a word for the kind of prejudice I’m trying to describe. White people almost always qualify for the civilized treatment, not the “lock them up like animals” treatment, or the “I supposed they’re used to this sort of thing” brush-off at the inhumane conditions of detention centres.
I see Ruddock who is not a reporter gives a journalism 101 lesson to Bernard Keane and in The Australian newspaper to double the slight.
The only thing resuscitated here is by Keane and that is a typically thoroughly dishonest and disingenuous leftoid Howard Derangement Syndrome sliming.
Illegal Boat entrants are but a fraction of UK/US holiday visa overstayers.
No sh-t Sherlock?
the electorate has an overwhelming dislike of boatpeople which has even been highlighted by todays poll in the Australian - from memory the results were 70:30 ‘for’ in terms of toughening our border security. Enough said, toughen up Rudd.
Let me clarify my point. The critical issue in this context is not people who overstay their visa’s, it’s refugees who embark on an extremely dangerous journey to get here and the people who exploit them. Thousands must have died along Ruddock’s pipeline, and I think we can all agree that this is not something that should be encouraged. Its not a positive thing for these people, no matter their previous circumstances. The critical question that needs to be asked here is what is the appropriate policy response to this problem? Saying “na, na Mr Ruddock you failed on an essentially unrelated issue” adds nothing constructive to the debate. Its basically Schoolyard tactics and on par with the “Yellow Peril” crap in my opinion.
Now if you want to examine Ruddocks alleged claim of Howard policy superiority address it directly. Its not hard to tell that events in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are creating more refugees globally, and thus there will be a flow on effect to Australia. In any case the vast majority of Howards policy is still in place so the fact that there has been a sharp increase in new arrivals would discredit Ruddocks claim outright. Clearly a policy issue as complex as this can not be solved by treating these people like prisoners of war.
So what is the appropriate policy setting? Certainly mandatory detention for an unspecified and uncertain length of time (unconstitutional for a citizen), charging people for the cost of their detention and temporary protection visa’s are not. But what is? That is what we should all be debating, not how many students stayed a little to long.
JamseK just one little thing about that article, seeing as how Ruddock and his manky crew got chucked out on their arses at the last election and seeing as how the liberal party has hit rockbottom and has started drilling, why does Ruddock think he can authoritatively speak for the ‘Australian community’?
The Duke, Which poll in the Australian is that? Do you mean the readers poll? not really representative, balanced or methodologically sound.
SBH,
Just to be clear you didn’t just imply I was a racist did you?
I despair over Ruddock daring to raise his head on the asylum-seeing issue. Here’s news vision of Howard, Ruddock and Reith on children overboard as Ruddock in the second take goes into a euphoric ramble: ” the sorts of children thrown would be those who could be readily lifted without objection from them”. No wonder Amnesty International stripped him of membership. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3WJ10xGkas&feature=related
“james mcdonald”
Mate you are off by a mile on these two:
“The first was a group of West Papuans fleeing Indonesian occupation. They were Christians, they were also country folk, and they were also independence campaigners who claimed they had to run for their lives. Those people were deported after Jakarta said they wouldn’t be harmed. We don’t know what became of them.”
This has nothing to do with racial prejudice and everything to do with Geopolitics. These people were deported back to Indonesia because the West Papuan independence movement is considered by Jakarta to be a critical threat to its national integrity, not because they “didn’t speak English”. Blind Freaddy should be able to see that. Right or wrong the independence of West Papua could fundamentally undermine the Indonesian state (there are dozens of separatist movements throughout Indonesia), and that’s not something Jakarta is going to stand by and watch. Giving independence campaigners asylum here, where they could feasibly rally support for their cause, would have been considered by Jakarta as a very hostile move on our part. Obviously the Indonesian relationship was considered more important, no matter the moral context. The fact that you cant see the wider international context in this case makes me question your objectivity.
“The second decision announced that week was about a Javanese academic at the University of Indonesia. He was a Muslim. But more importantly I believe, he was an educated middle-class city-dweller who spoke English like one of us. Following an article he wrote for the papers in which he accused the government of extensive corruption, he found he stopped being invited to some parties and it was hinted to him that he might lose his job at the university. His refugee application was approved very quickly. Also, despite the rules I mentioned above about no job-finding support for TPV holders under Ruddock, this man was quickly networked into a well-paid academic position in Australia.”
Again this probably ahs more to do with the diplomatic circumstances surrounding the case. The fact that he “might have lost his job” shows how comparatively lightly the Indonesians were taking this. Allegations of corruption in the Australian press would have virtually no impact on the Indonesian government , thus they were probably happy to see him go.
There is more at stake in these matters than skin colour, language and level of education. Again if the government exercises systematic prejudice in matters of immigration then why are the majority people who migrate to Australia every year “not like us”?
If you want prejudice your looking in the wrong place, try your local indigenous community.
Latest news in from ABC News, Asylum shoppers on the boat intercepted by the Indonesians threaten to blow up the boat. Seems part of the essential illegal immigrant kit now includes a jerry can of premium and a box of water proof matches.
I reread the article……but no SBH…..there was no claim by Ruddock to speak for the Australian community.
Interesting to note however that Bernard Keane extraordinarily did claim to speak for the Australian community above.
But perhaps Bernard Keane, unlike Ruddock, is an elected public representative?
Oh no! It’s the other way ‘round isn’t it?
Ruddock is in fact the elected public representative and former Minister of the Crown ……. and in this very area of interest.
But it was, in fact, Keane not Ruddock who actually did claim to speak for our community.
Ruddock wrote an article with a point of view supported by an argument something thats apparently is either too difficult or deemed unnecessary for lefties like Bernard Keane and yourself to formulate (Edit - No)
Facts and the truth…so inconvenient…… aren’t they SBH?
Me? ‘course not. But your phrase ” I’m not…… but” is an equivocation that gives room for interpretations you may not welcome.
Hey editor
How come my post got editted but JamesK’s “Pronounced mean-spirited by the poisonously opinionated Chris Graham……’ gets left in?
“The Duke, Which poll in the Australian is that? Do you mean the readers poll? not really representative, balanced or methodologically sound.”
Try the 2001 Federal Election Poll. Ahhh yes the “unlosable election” for which Labor lost on this very issue.
Laborites have been crying about getting their arses handed to them on a silver platter ever since, whining about things no one cares about like “children overboard”(honestly who cares?).
How about we talk about the 5 people murdered, 12 seriously burnt and 8 Australian Defence Personel blown into the water by Asylum Seekers with a can of petrol and some matches? Lets have a long drawn out inquiry into that one!
James Macdonald:
“Oblizzard, re “paying organised crime figures for the privilege”, please read Harvey’s post above. If they are “organized crime figures” only by definition of the fact that they’re organized, and they smuggle people which is a crime, then isn’t your description of them a bit of a tautology with nothing to say about whether they are really so evil?”
I’m sorry but did you just equate people smugglers who make huge profits off human suffering with the Jewish resistance in WW2??? The fact is these people charge massive fees for their services, take very little care for their “cargo” and cause significant loss of life. They exploit these people for everything they are worth with the promise of a better life, only to put their personal safety at significant and often unnecessary risk (overcrowding, unsafe vessels ext). There is a MASSIVE difference between what Harvey’s grandmother experienced and what’s going on here. One was driven out of a sense of human courage, defiance and decency. The other, profit.
“And even if for the sake of argument we agree that smuggling is evil, what do you say about the way the smugglees were treated once they became legal wards of the esteemed Minister of Immigration, as I briefly discussed above, during the assessment process and even after being found to be legitimate refugees?”
Personally I think mandatory detention is unjustified in any circumstance but war. These people should be granted the same rights as a citizen would enjoy. Temporary detention visa’s and a detention fee seem almost sadistic considering the circumstances these people are in, but again things are not much better under Rudd.
SBH,
Ok, that’s what I thought. But then again you can never tell when you are dealing with true believers.
So to explore that comment a little. You think I am a Howard apologist because I made a distinction between people overstaying their visa’s and boat people? Hmm…. Maybe its just me but I don’t see the connection there. But I guess its always easier to make a three word quip than to actually address an argument huh? You don’t agree with my opinion of the pettiness of this article? Fine, but how about telling me why…
SBH - I understand what you are saying and yes, a poll is a poll. Clearly it is not a targeted survey but I still suspect there is some truth to the results as pointed out by the thetruthhurts where border control was a key driver behind Howards win in 2001. To a certain extent, Pauline Hansons popularity at the 1998 election (I think One Nation polled 1 million votes?) also represents the electorates view on border control.
I am all for mandatory detention as long as the term is defined. There needs to be a deterrent ‘of some sort’ to ensure that the ‘boat people’ atleast think twice before entering our shores illegally. I fully supported, like a large portion of the electorate, Howards stance on Tampa and the culmination of the Pacific Solution.
The USA has a policy for ‘illegal aliens’ whereby they are deported without even a hearing. I am not saying we should adopt this policy, but we should not be letting illegal immigrants enter with open arms because clearly, this is not what the electorate wants.
We are a compassionate country and those who try to paint Howard as a monster need to think twice because his policies certainly weren’t unpopular. If 95% of the 13,500 yearly intake of refugees can enter the country by plane, why not the boat people?
Oblizzard - Thanks for the considered replies.
On the West Papuans - OK I accept that international politics rather than racism/classism was the motivator. That still leaves me wondering when did the Immigration Dept start taking foreign affairs interests into account when making human rights determinations.
On the Javanese professor - I think my point about class/cultural prejudice still stands and has yet to be refuted.
On profit-driven smugglers vs. WW2 idealists - I grant there is a difference but I’ve seen very little detail about them in the media. We characterize modern smugglers as sociopaths without regard for human life or safety. Does anyone know any factual basis for this?
Mandatory detention - that’s the most important point I wanted to make, and I’m glad we agree on that.
Everyone else: whatever you think of the merits or otherwise of unauthorized arrivals, how could we ever have tolerated treating them empounded stray dogs?
Sorry for the argumentative tone.
I am not sure, like every Australian Government, what the answer is James McDonald.
Treating them like empounded stray dogs? nope (and I doubt they ever were), but they should certainly be made to do ‘harder yards’ if they want to enter the country illegally and then acquire work visas.
Has it occurred to people, that if we don’t go into countries, murder the citizens, jail kids over the age of 14(Iraq) send people who protest to foreign jails to be tortured; screw the economy of the country, destroy essential infrastructure(such as electricity and water/sewerage etc) force millions to flee for their lives, within and outside the country, thhheeeennnnnn - those people won’t NEED to hand over money in desperation to save their lives! It seems to me, that this is the place to start. We either invaded the countries, or support the regimes that are oppressing these people - West Papua, Sri Lanka, Africa etc. I find it amazing, that so much time is spent debated the situation re asylum seekers in leaky boats, but nobody, journalistic etc has raised the basic question.
What can not be denied, is that Howard, Downer, Ruddock and company, denigrated, demeaned, ridiculed and insulted people from Iraq, Afghanistan etc, which made it easier to whip up their propaganda. I suggest that people read ‘Dark Victory’ about the Tampa, watch the video about the Captain of the Tampa, and also read, ‘Following Them Home’ which follows about 1/2 a dozen or so deportees. There’s also been a couple of documentaries on SBS. I suppose people like JAMESK who reads the Australian, wouldn’t bother reading these books or watching the documentaries.
Howard and his ilk should’ve faced charges of crimes against humanity. They used the same methods as (edit) etc, and appealed to those racists and bigots in the community, who conveniently omit any sense of obligation or contribution to the perils facing many in the world - too many suffer because we support empire builders and corporate wealth, who’ll stop at nothing to build their empires - I refer of course to the US. Before Hitler started murdering Jews, gypsies, gays, unionists etc, he went on a campaign of being hateful and vitriolic. We haven’t learned from history, that’s why we keep on getting it ‘wrong’!
If anyone really thinks we should go back to Howard’s way of dealing with tortured people, they have no conscience, and should never boast of having any principles of human rights variety - it will be BS, and lots of us will recognise it as such!
JAMESK - people who seek asylum in our country(or any other country for that matter?) are not illegals? They have that right via the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and also the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. The Howard govt recomitted to both these during their years of oppression. We either live by it, or refuse to sign it. We can’t do both and retain any sort of dignity or respect - that’s a lie! Howard demeaned any respect this country had. We are trying to regain some of the former respect we once had(apart from our treatment of indigenous Australians of course). Sharmon Stone agreed to the changes the Rudd govt made - then she saw a chance to get some leverage in the polls - she was the Coalition chief person on the combined Committee. She makes me feel angry, and ashamed to be a woman!!!
I dunno JamesK, I don’t find facts inconvenient, just factual. Like the fact that the opposition (yes that’s right your mob don’t run the place anymore and won’t for years to come) front bencher Ruddock articulates his view of what the Australian community wants. And of course as the sitting member for the oh so cosmopolitan and ethnically diverse Berowra he’d know.
Thetruthhurts seems to find facts painfull though and likes to quote historical examples to back up present day realities. Yes Howard won in 2001, and Australia beat NZ in 1981, both victories tainted by shamefull tactics. To be fair to Trevor Chappel though, no lives were lost then. For the record in 2007 the Howard Government was thrown out by an electorate that saw it as ‘mean and tricky’ their words not mine.
Duke I’m not taking lessons from America any time soon about how to run the world and for the ten brazillionth time THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL
Oblizzard - I don’t agree with you but James Mc said why better than I could so I didn’t respond. I’ve re read your posts and I still don’t agree but it would be a dull place if we all agreed. I may have been unneccessarily harsh but the issue is emotive. Apologies.
On behalf of Amnesty International, I’d like to clarify a few points mentioned in this forum.
Amnesty International Australia has never revoked the membership of any member, or requested that anyone return their badge.
As it is for anybody, Phillip Ruddock’s choice to wear the AI badge is his to make. Amnesty International Australia calls on anyone representing Amnesty International in this way to live up to the values enshrined in that badge – of promoting and defending all human rights, for all people in the world.
Amnesty International has many thousands of members in Australia. Our focus continues to be on our human rights work and not on any particular individual’s membership of AIA.
Regards,
Caroline Shepherd
Media and Public Affairs Coordinator
“Shameful tactics” is subjective wordology supported by nothing other than an election win.
I don’t recall the previous Government being thrown out for being ‘mean and tricky’ infact, if my memory serves me correct, Border Control was one factor that was heavily weighted in favour of the previous Government (in terms of public opinion).
As for Trevor Chappell, he wasn’t as good as Ian or Greg!!
thanks Caroline… just proves how warped some people have become since November 2007.
Arthur Baker: on the Lowy Institute survey, it does indeed say:
“a large majority (76%) of Australians said they were ‘somewhat concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ ‘about unauthorised asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat’. Just one-fifth (21%) said they were ‘not concerned’”
I just wish the Institute had worded the question a bit less ambiguously. I would have rated myself within that ‘very concerned’ 76 per cent. Though not for the same reasons that the Ruddock would also do so.
Re Carolines clarification……
As it is for anybody, Phillip Ruddock’s choice to wear the AI badge is his to make. Amnesty International Australia calls on anyone representing Amnesty International in this way to live up to the values enshrined in that badge – of promoting and defending all human rights, for all people in the world…..
It should be to his eternal shame, Ruddock failed to liveup to those values. But he does continue to this day to live up to being a dirt bag, along with some of his collegues in the Liberal Party who are baying for blood and demanding a return to the Ruddock/Howard good old days. Even the red stocking wearer, Downer has joined the chorus. Why do these yesterdays persons think anyone in their right mind wants to listen?
Caroline: I stand corrected on Ruddock’s membership then. I had been told differently.
You might notice in this thread at least two people had reservations about Amnesty International for letting the former Minister of Stray Human Disposal be a member. One person made it clear she would never join while he was in it.
You might want to bring up this point in meetings and review the policy of being unconcerned about membership. The AI website, frequently asked questions, says:
“Amnesty International’s independence is a vital part of our effectiveness. We do not accept any money from governments or political parties, so we are free to criticise governments and others for abusing people’s rights, or for failing to protect them. Because we are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion, we can take action to defend human rights wherever they are violated.”
Now I’m sure the current MP, Liberal Party Member, and former Minister for Human Degradation joined as a private person and not in his official capacity, so that the letter of AI’s policy is still intact.
But in most people’s eyes it’s a technicality, and it tars you. I too would never join an organisation that would have him.
on the topic of yesterdays persons RaymondChurch, many people think the same thing when Keating opens his trap! lol
duke, that comparison between Ruddock and Keating would only be made by someone who finds Ruddock amusing as you obviously do. Thank God there are not many contributing here who join you in applying amusing to anything that s.o.b. has done or said.
I don’t know as I have never heard him tell a joke but I was merely joining in with you and nominating another person of another yesterday and another era.
As you would recall, strong and robust Border Control was a critical issue in the 2001 election. I see nothing to suggest that the electorate has changed their tune since.
For a s.o.b, Ruddock has certainly been around for a long time.
And his currency has been his morals Duke. In order to stay at the centre of affairs he moved from being a progressive Liberal to being so dry that he could tell the difference between people and driftwood.
SIEV X, children overboard, ‘it’, mandatory detention of unaccompanied children. Keating at his worst was on another plane. (that’s euclidian, not aeronautical)
Didn’t we have a referrendum on this issue back in 2001?
The Bleeding hearts just can’t accept that Australians don’t want queue jumping illegals coming here by boat. They harp on about “Children Overboard” as a distraction to the fact they got their arses handed to them on a silver platter at the 2001 election, yet no one cared… they were solidly re-elected in 2004.
If you cut through the BS you are left with one very easy question: Should Australia be letting rich queue jumpers who are living safely in Indonesia and have passed through various safe havens, steal positions from real legitimate refugee’s rotting in a run down U.N camp waiting patiently years for Australia to accept them?
Take the rose coloured glasses off and you’ll find the answer.
ZENA ZURAWEL: People are always accusing me of having written things, which, if they took the trouble to read what I wrote, they would realize how misinformed they are being.
FACT: I have never the used the colour against anyone, in any comment at all.
FACT: Where, in my comment did in invoke the Noble Peace Prize?
FACT: You attack me as if I were against immigrants. As I believe that immigrants and drugs should both be allowed. This would remove the profiters.
FACT: You attack me because I am not a Jew (by implication) and I have not as much knowledge as a holocaust survivor, like you.
MY OPINION: I’m getting very sick of people who wave their having been in Auchwitz, Bergen Belsen, etc etc. around in the air like a flag. This terrible experience doesn’t appear to prevent Jews from supporting the state of Israel. And Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is almost a carbon copy of the way the Germans treated the Jews. Fundamentalist Jews justify Benjamin Netanyuhu’s
acquisition of Palestinian land and claiming it for settlers, on the basis that God said so in a three thousand year old book.
Dear Rena, Please quote me accurately if you wish to have a go at me. Also doesn’t it say in one of your Christian stories that Christ said something along the lines of get the cat out of your own eye before trying to remove the same animal out of your neighbour’s eyes?
So Rena
TTH, some people do remember having a referendum on refugee issues in 2001.
But then, some people remember trying to have a referendum on refugee and other human rights issues in 2001, but being thwarted by a me-too Kim Beazley who steadfastly ignored what the papers were talking about, refused to discuss human rights in his election campaign, and tried to out-Howard Howard by proposing a whole new security force for rounding up “queue jumpers” and “sending them back where they came from”. At which point voters said well if we can’t have human rights, we’ll at least have some economic competence.
According to those of us who remember the second scenario, no, we didn’t have a referendum on this.
TheTruthHurts I’ll go through this point by point for you:
Oblizzard has given me a lesson in manners recently and in that vein I provide the following. If you’re able to refute any of this factually please do, if not just embrace the truth. I know it hurts but it’s all rational people have.
1 – No, we didn’t have a referrendum nor a referendum for that matter (sorry James Mc). We had a general election. Elections are different, they are counted differently succeed or fail differently have different electors and different outcomes. For an excellent account of the way the issues of immigration and asylum seekers were treated during that election campaign you could do worse than to read David Marr and Marion Wilkinson’s ‘Dark Victory’ (ISBN / Catalogue Number: 9781741144475).
2 – Yes I’m a bleeding heart (that’s what the BH stands for, you can speculate on what the ‘S’ stands for). That means I see the distress of my fellow human beings as my problem too. I don’t think this makes me a weaker, smaller or worse person.
3 – Who are these Australians you speak of. Many, many of your fellow citizens on both sides of politics find the vilification of refugees as ‘illegal queue jumpers’ as offensive as it is factually wrong. See point 7 for more detail.
4 – there is no queue.
5 – see post above – people seeking asylum are legally entitled to come here and seek asylum, they are not illegal
6 – Yes we (bleeding hearts) continue to remind people that your Government lied to you about refugees throwing their children overboard. But it’s not just us. Anyone who thinks that honest, open and accountable government is a good thing would be horrified at the depths the government sank to during that campaign and I doubt there are many people in this country who think governments should lie to the electorate. So yes it’s a very important point that needs to be remembered
7 – seeing as you treat the 2001 election as some kind of opinion poll for the whole Australian electorate consider these figures. In that election, the ALP outpolled the Liberal party with 4.341 million votes to 4.254. The Nats which supported the Libs got 643,000 however the Dem who opposed the policy and the Greens who vociferously opposed the policy both achieved swings in their favour polling 620,000 and 569,000 respectively (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2001/results/index.html) continuing to use the 2001 election results in the way you do is simply not supported by the way people voted.
8 - Do you personally know of any data that supports the contention that ‘rich’ people come to Australia by boat and get preferential treatment? If so, let’s hear it. If not why do you keep making the assertion.
9 - The idea that this is an ‘easy’ question beggars belief. H.L Mencken sums up thus “”There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”
LIZ45: Yes, now I remember, thanks. I’ve been going through a very difficult year, Liz, so forgive me if I have spasms of forgetfulness.
Cheers
Venise.
Hi SBH - well said, and I took Duke’s reference to a “referendum” to mean in the de facto sense of an election dominated by a single issue. That’s the interpretation that’s often printed, I believe that’s close to Marr’s and Wilkinson’s theory of how Howard won, but it was far from my impression of the contest at the time.
The biggest ever mass demonstration in Australian history the following February, as well as enormous demonstrations against NT criminal mandatory detention laws in ‘01 and related issues, tends to support my impression that voters were much more interested in humanitarian issues that year than Labor was.
That was the reason Labor lost. Kim Beazley talked big but when his moment came he had no spine. The newspapers during that election campaign did the finest season of reporting that I’ve ever seen. Australia, it seemed to me, was ready for a new era of maturity. Beazley stubbornly ignored them and in the final weeks of the campaign he and Howard together succeeded in bludgeoning the papers into settling back into what he called “traditional values” — i.e. the distribution of wealth. Forced to choose a party on economic issues alone, voters chose the one with more economic credibility.
That’s how I remember it, anyway. So there was a moment there when as a society we almost grew up. I’ll never forgive Beazley for stepping up as opposition leader and then not having the guts to take take us that step forward.
TTH’s reference to a referendum, that is, not Duke’s
I saw a good slab of it from the inside James. It was uuuuuugly. Had Beazer stepped up he would still have lost BUT he would have established a moral foundation for the ALP that would have destroyed Howard and the libs much sooner
You know, I’ve never resented a politician so much. I admire Howard as a man who reinvented himself in the image of what he wanted to be, and I respected him as a worthy enemy of everything that I stand for. I consider the Member for Berowra and former Minister for Stray Human Disposal to be sub-human but he is what he is and what can you say? But I reserve a special contempt for Beazley of the great expectations, who waited his whole life for that moment when Australians were looking for someone to lead them out of the moral darkness, and all Beazley wanted to talk about was piddling amounts of money. I’ll never forgive him for that. I would be interested to hear some of your inside view of that year.
Offering a bit of insight into Phillip Ruddock. If 50-per-cent is true, asylum seekers haven’t a hope of touching base with a closed mind and heart.
http://www.griffithreview.com/edition-5/43-reportage/451.html
Interesting article, Christine. The irony of Ruddock’s proposed post-mortem claims is that it would be unnecessary if defamation law didn’t put most of the burdens of proof on the defendant. If people were more able to tell it as they see it while the subject were alive, there would be none of this waiting for death before telling the truth. As for Ruddock’s proposed “reasonableness” test — speaks for itself, doesn’t it. North Korea. If the former Minister for Scaring Refugees More Than They’re Scared Already didn’t exist, you’d just about have to invent him.
JAMES MCDONALD: I was about to compliment you on something you said. Then I remembered that you don’t wish to speak to me. So I’ll not say it.
PS: Naughty naughty. You must not use phrases like sub-human. If you do you will find someone who has a mentally-retarded child will accuse you of being hurtful. Just passing on a favour because of the kindness you showed me with my computer problem.
Sincerely
V.
Funny Peter Reith hated unions because his view of what they’d done to his father. George Lakos recons it’s a conservative thing
My last sentence should of course read ” with an open mind and heart”. Perhaps its understanding Phillip Ruddock’s demons or drivers?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/27/1093518012698.html
Venise, how and when did I give the impression of not wanting to speak to you? It’s always a pleasure speaking with you, both when we agree and when we disagree.
JAMES MCDONALD: I have no intention of being politically correct, but yesterday I said that television audiences had an IQ of ten year children, and that the people who made the shows had the same mind-set. A man admonished me for saying it because he has a son with a mental illness.
Because you-it was you wasn’t it? had been kind to me, I thought to pass it on.
That’s all.
JAMES MCDONALD: Ouch! I’ve just remembered it wasn’t you. It was John Bennett.
Sorry about all of that.
venise
No it wasn’t me. I don’t have any mentally ill sons. Was the person using my name?
You’re right of course. Advertising aims to sell product, and it’s not enough for the advertisement to be seen, it has to also fall on fertile ground. And the most fertile ground is an audience that has been semi-hypnotized into a mouth-breathing state of idiocy. So intelligent shows, even if they get high ratings, aren’t much good for advertisers, and therefore aren’t much good for networks.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Bingo! “an audience that has been semi-hypnotized into a mouth-breathing state of idiocy”. Quite, quite brilliant! Olé
Cheers
Venise
made me chuckle
Ruddock’s face reminds of a constipated greyhound. Regards Richard Ryan.
Lakoff
Why is it? I asked myself, after watching and listening to the Opposition spokesperson on border control during yesterdays Insiders, why is it the Opposition always throw up, mean, nasty looking and sounding, aggro, snarling, grumpy, sour and generally offensive persons in this and reklated portfolios?
well if you run through the ranks, do thy have much choice?
problems with the ‘E’ key like on Homer’s typewriter. THEY not THY