“Ah yairs, explained elsewhere on the comment strings here, only recently though.

Back on early election when Rudd was questioned on Tasmanian forests, and Michael O’Connor was appointed onto the national ALP execuitive from Forestry union within CFMEU (having condoned violent union protests against anti logging folks), Rudd said to the effect of:

We will decide forests on the “science”.

But over 100 best biologists wrote a letter Howard as PM prior to 2004 election where Latham flamed out, saying in clear language most of that forest should be saved. It was hard to reference but I found the list, first linked to defunct Earthbeat, also published by me at the time.

But Rudd didn’t follow the science. He is a, and I mean this in a front bar room and also legal technical sense, a big f*cking liar. The forests policy fraughtness is emblematic of Rudd on king coal climate (iCoal 2.0 indeed, as per Get Up).

So there we have it Kevin “Science” Rudd. A logical hook for him as an accomplished academic to grab at, his default rhetorical indeed. But when he said it under pressure in an interview, it was without sincerity or conviction. He is thus hoist on his own hook/petard. Science is a purely ironic term.

The fact he looks like a walking lab coat only amuses more even more. It’s a slow fuse this tag and joke. But it bears repeating, repeating, repeat ……..”

Australia only had a 19% increase!

Australias numbers are small in absolute terms too. About 1700 have come by boat this year, but Italy had 36,000 boat arrivals last year. Most prefer the US(49,000 in 2008) Canada(36,900)France(35,200) and Britain(30,500).

The reason is not because they have “gone soft” but because of the violence in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka.”

As for Turnbull and Sharmon Stone etc carrying on about resuming the horrors of the TPV’s for instand, the unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia continued to increase AFTER the introduction of TPV’s in 1999 (48% more asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2001 than in 1999) The evidence shows, that TPV’s have no value as a deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals”.

“Regardless of how they arrive, people coming to this country seeking asylum have the right under International Law” The changes to the Laws on Immigration came about after non-partisan Senate Committees, and they’ve been recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the UN Human Rights Committee.

When Turnbull, Stone or WA Premier Colin Barnett call for an inquiry, they should take another look at the inquiries already conducted, and look to implement the report’s recommendations!

GREG ANGELO “The difference between boat people and those who breach their visa conditions is that the boat people are stating up front that they intend to migrate illegally.” You conveniently omit to mention, that some people who come here by plane give false statements on their visa - some deliberately intend to apply for asylum either when they arrive, or when their visa expires, or when they’re caught!

As already pointed out, Indonesia is not a signatory to the Migration Act, and so doesn’t have any obligation to abide by the laws. Their track record on human rights is horrific - just ask the people from East Timor or West Papua etc. I’ve read many accounts of how Indonesia ‘look after’ asylum seekers?

Kevin Rudd needs to publicly explain the facts to the Australian people, and stand up to Turnbull, Bishop, Stone and the racist and revolting creep from Darwin(who yesterday referred to the Sri Lankans as “scum”). Turnbull should be asked the simple question; ‘Do you want the treatment of asylum seekers to go back to how they were under Howard’? Put him on the spot, instead of letting him shoot his mouth off. His past boss helped this situation to develop by assisting in the killing of Iraqis and Afghanis; allowed the killing of civilians in Sri Lanka, Sudan and Somalia by or allowed by the US.

96% of asylum seekers come by plane. Rudd should keep on uttering this simple fact too - over and over and over!Wave the recommendations of the Senate Committees under Turnbull’s nose - then ask him what he’d do. When he doesn’t have an answer, tell him to shut up!

“When it comes to criticism we have seen how thin skinned Kevin Rudd is. Does this stem from a lack of confidence or courage? There is no way Kevin is going to lose the next election, so why does he let the opposition get away with the wedge on refugees? The issue is not an election winner or spoiler for either major party. Why can’t he get out on the front foot and put the facts relating to refugees fairly and squarely to the Australian people. “

My view Bruce (great Conversation Hour by the way with Richard Fidler a while back):

Kevin ‘Science’ Rudd PM has tasted the ambrosia, that intoxicating liquor of power combined with popularity. Every politician has sniffed at least some of that drug. Even a humble ex local councillor here. He’s as addicted as any junkie in any gutter in a back lane of Sydney, or other world city. And so the imperative for a fix of popularity overtakes basic human decency.

And why is it also dumb politics in the longer term? Because this is what a progressive but unpopular decision to embrace those refugees would do - it would show everyone else in Australia that when the chips are really down, when you or you or you find yourself in a minority of some kind you’ve got a friend in our prime minister. But now we know the truth - if you are in an unpopular minority by bad luck or bad judgement, this PM will ruthlessly reject you, so you better be afraid of him with all that power, because he’s a self serving bully and no one is safe in a minority in Australia with a leader like that at some time in the future.

And the irony is we are all in a minority in some fashion. ‘Science’ has thus sewn the seeds of his own demise. But I think it started with appointing War for Oil Nelson. The unstable neurosis that must cause the HAL 2000 brain of Science must be excruciating and bound to end in tears.

Why do the ‘refugees’ want to leave this big holiday resort?

For the same reason as Aussie tourists do RAE.
Nice place to visit, but a hard place to live.

I noticed in old 50s newspaper articles it was to refer to the post-war refugees proudly as “new Australians”.

It’s a good question: what happened to us.

Maybe part of it is that in an era when published current affairs is nine parts Opinion (the capital-O section of the paper that many readers turn to first) to one part information, it’s possible for misinformation to spread more prolifically than information if it pushes the right buttons.

In the “information age”, it’s not the unprecedented access to information that counts, its the even greater access to opinion that swamps information, making it even easier to wedge than it was during the age of the Berlin Wall.

We’ve seen the facts again and again and again:

- wars and unrest, not Australian border policies, determine boat people numbers
- refugee numbers are less than 5 per cent of net immigration quotas even in a bad year
- most real refugees never have any access to the UNHCR “queue”
- the overwhelming majority of boat people are found to be genuine refugees
- it’s not “illegal” to show up at the door and ask for asylum

The vast majority of anti-boat-people polemic cannot withstand simple examination under those facts. But you try to show someone these facts and the eyes glaze over, they go vague and consult some inner bigot, then come back with another unsupportable myth you’ve already disproven, until you come back in a circle to the original point. And so it goes.

Simply, if people claim to be refugees, it is our legal and humanitarian duty to shelter them and offer succour, until we know otherwise.

What on earth is wrong with Australia?

The actual number you would allow in is ?

And when that number is reached how do we then compassionately deter more.

The boat people/ Afghan war comparison is valid - do you seriously believe we aren’t blowing up innocents over there.
They are just a little further away.

Re the name - it’s not so difficult James - the ones i post have the surname Bennett,the one you post have the surname Mcdonald. Concentrate, you’ll work it out.

1) those with family members in Australia or other significant connection to Australia
2) refugee applicants who are already here and who satisfy UN tests of being genuine refugees
3) all the other applicants

Adding up categories 1 and 2, you could subtract their total from the 278,000 we brought in last year and still have plenty of room for hundreds of thousands nice blue-eyed Christian trained consumers with high credit limits who will fit right in and know what kind of flat-screen TV is better for watching the cricket on.

It’s too easy to just say we should do more, please qoute your ideal refugee intake number on future posts and unless you say infinity you are actually just like Ruddock supporters but you’ve set your qouta higher.

And just like Ruddock at some saturation stage you will have to put in place programmes to deter and stop the intake.
So you’ll be right where we are now with some decisions to make.

We are happy to sacrifice a few collateral Afghans and Iraqies in the terror war by dropping bombs on them and declaring them terrorists, i think the same strategy could be used against boatpeople. The deterrant effect would be remarkable and it would be cheaper than locking them up.

If that is true, how come that we accept well over hundred thousand migrants every year?
And how come that we do not care about our water resources in mining uranium, the Australian taxpayer does not benefit from?

Apart from that, I tend to believe that we have no time for Tamil refugees as we are too busy watching elections in Iran and ‘our resources’ are too busy liberating women in Afghanistan.

Bill Cushing
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everybody on this planet has every right to choose the place of abode.
Article 13
(1) Everybody has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Article 14
(1) Everybody has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Bill, Australia did not have to sign this Declaration. Many countries did not.

Greg Angelo, look at the numbers, which Bernard Keane discussed in yesterday’s article “Boat people: driven by Rudd or war?”:

13,750 …………… the number of places allocated for humanitarian migration in Australia this year
4,750 …………….. the number of refugee applications to Australia last year
278,000 ………….. net total migration into Australia in the year to March
55% ………………. the rejection rate of refugee claims by applicants who come by plane
2-15% ……………. the rejection rate of refugee claims by “queue jumpers” who arrive unauthorized by boat

As for your point about re-migrating from safe Indonesia and no longer being refugees, did you actually read the above article properly?

“For make no mistake sending these people back to Indonesia is to condemn them to a debilitating existence on top of the effect and memory of the horrors they sought to escape. They will be warehoused in Indonesia, a country which is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, for up to 10 years under conditions which will lead most to suffer mental deterioration.”

You’re welcom to argue against that on facts, but isn’t it a waste of time to comment on it without even reading it?

Rudd’s shown his true colours this week - the man’s a coward. I commend him, the other Kevin, Philip, Malcolm and the rest of them to Luke 10:25-37.

Christians my a-se! And I’m a devout aetheist

Just checking, but could you please confirm there has in fact been a change! I think that the Greens will do particularly well at the next election…..