Re-election reality hits asylum
seekers
|
While the numbers of asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by boat remains small, the political impact was growing. Seemingly every day, a new media alert would appear from Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor’s office announcing yet another boat had been intercepted. The issue has yet to ignite with the public in the way it did in 2001, but the steady stream of boats gave the sense that a highway into Australia had been opened via Christmas Island and it was becoming packed with traffic. The bulk of the arrivals were from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Last year, Afghanistan once again became the world’s biggest source of asylum seekers, with more than 26,000 Afghans seeking refuge outside their country, mainly in Europe. The UNHCR’s review of circumstances in Sri Lanka has given the Government the cover it needs to send a signal that it is prepared to be tough on asylum seekers as well as people smugglers. Essential Research polling released earlier this week showed most voters thought the Government was too soft on the issue. The Government’s announcement of temporary suspensions of processing of asylum claims by Afghans and Sri Lankans will induce a furious reaction from refugee advocates, the Greens, and perhaps even some Labor MPs. That will be exactly what the Government wants — criticism that it is mimicking the Howard Government on the issue will play well with mainstream voters who voted Labor in 2007, but who might be prepared to let their anti-refugee views sway their vote this time around. The Government was justifiably proud of its amendments to remove the excesses of the Howard Government’s treatment of asylum seekers, which had in any event been softened over time. But there is no way it will permit asylum seekers or their local advocates to endanger its re-election. This is straight-out, brutal realpolitik. |
|
|
|
118 Comments
Fucking snivelling cowards will murder people instead of simply telling the truth and our fucking media have been goading them into it all along.
Jesus wept, the two people who really need our help more than anyone on earth and we do this to them.
It’s depravity of the highest order when we consider that 100% of Afghans have been granted status because they are genuine refugees and Evans whining that it sends some fucking message to smugglers like they give more of a shit about the refugees than we do.
Why don’t we suspend the claims of the thousands of other people who aren’t refugees but try it on? Because it is illegal and this country makes me puke.
So well done to the MSM for this disgusting depravity.
Yep — it’ll defuse the storm-in-a-teacup that the opposition has been brewing in the lead-up to the announcement of a DD. What fear factor will they use now?
It’ll be interesting to see what back-flip/spin Scott Morrison will put on this.
I note that the MSM is already saying that this line contradicts the govt. argument for push factors — blondie on SKY led with that within minutes — like many of her age, she obviously thinks everything in the world happens instantaneously.
No doubt the hate refugees lobby will be thrilled to hear the latest news that the government is suspending the processing of all new Afghan and Sri Lankan refugee applications after the sinking of a boatload of refugees of the WA Coast this morning. It appears that they may all have been rescued by the HMAS Wollongong. What happens next? Stay tuned.
Hope you’re right JENAUTHOR. The brakes had to go on, sadly. I had hoped that Rudd and Co soft pedalling on the issue would have lowered its profile with the public, but I guess if it’s the only issue the Opposition have left they’ll ride it all the way.
Marylin above has plenty of people like me who share her sentiments on refugees if not her language when expressing them. Ultimately though how does it help if Labour loses government and we have Abbott and Co. running the show?
and the opposition’s response today is that this is a cynical political response from the govt. Well one cynical political response in response to another, isn’t this what they wanted?
The gov has got the headlines they want now (Rudd shuts the door on asylum seekers, etc), instead of the headlines being driven by the opposition lately (Australian policies welcome asylum seekers) They will invoke the ire of refugee advocates but they don’t need their votes anyway (they are not going to vote for the worse alternative of the coalition) and their attacks will only make the govt look tougher. I can’t imagine what nightmares we are in for inside the detention centres in the coming months…people will simply be locked up to wait -we really are back to the Howard years and we can give big thanks to the coalition and News Limited for pushing it this far. But it might have the desired effect of stopping people getting on boats, people would now be better to wait it out in indonesia - I hope we have upped our funding to indonesia.
The last governemnt did this with Tampa and most were initially rejected and hung around in nauru for years until they went back under pressure or had their decisions overturned and ended up here anyway. The current government is actually already tougher than the past govt with rejections, they have already deported people. The last govt just applied pressure to people in Nauru and many returned out of fear that they would be deported with force, but they were never actually deported.
I would call it an embarrassment for the Australian Government to be told to do something about it’s border protection policy by The United Nations.
To say that I’m disappointed re the decision of Senator Chris Evans in relation to people seeking refuge from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka is an understatement - I’m disgusted! To use the misery of people from both of these countries as a political tool, in order to be re-elected is beyond belief! When politicians from both major parties raved on about the horrific injustice of racial hatred via words or actions during the attacks on people from India, and then behave in this way, shows that they have sunk to a new low, and as usual are hypocrites.
As you point out Bernard, the numbers of Afghanis fleeing their home country are very high. With what I read, sites I visit such as http://www.rawa.org(The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) and that of Malalai Joye, a young Afghani woman, elected to Parlt but suspended because she refused to shut up about the criminals who sit in that place, but have been and in many cases still are, raping, murdering and torturing civilians. While she was thrown out, those who threatened her with rape, torture and death are still protected by Karzai, who also told her to shut up! She has named those who are involved with the heroin trade, and the parlt protects them. She has avoided at least 5 attempts on her life. If people want insight into the real truth of what’s happening in her country, they should read, ‘Raising My Voice’ and listen to interviews with her during her visit to Australia last year. The Conversation Hour on ABC Radio is just one!
I believe that every person in Afghanistan has good reason to leave, particularly the women and children. They are malnourished, and in many cases are dying of preventable diseases and illnesses. Afghanistan has the highest number of children in the world who are orphans. While there are lots of good and decent men in that country, too many are using violence and horror to silence the dissenters, just like what is happening in Iraq and Sri Lanka! The use of rape in these countries has been of concern to the United Nations for many yrs now - it is not abating. The lives of people in the countries singled out by the govt in todays media release are not safe, it’s a nightmare. In the last few days we’ve learned of the deliberate killing of several men and women - 2 of the women were pregnant. As usual, the US first denied it, then accused the dead of being insurgents or ??? and only when the evidence was too obvious to deny, they then announce, that they will ‘compensate the families concerned’? Well, that’s OK then! That makes it alright doesn’t it? Where’s the right to life people now? An interview with a journalist who researched this horror is on the ABC PM website of a couple? of days ago.
The person in Sri Lanka who stood against the incumbant President is in jail at this time. How anyone can assert, that life for the Tamils has improved is either a liar or deliberately denying reality for disingenuous reasons. Where are all the homes for the hundreds of thousands who were living in tents in makeshift refugee centres? During the conflict, they had to flee their homes to save their lives, and many homes were destroyed - many have nowhere to go back to! Their safety is not assured at all. The present President is demonising these people - there’s no insistence by the Rudd govt to ensure their safety. There’s plenty of evidence that clearly shows, that many people who were deported under the Howard regime were killed or imprisoned after their return. A book called ‘Following them Home’ clearly shows this, and Edmond Rice conducted their own research which gave accounts of individuals and families who were murdered upon their return, or who live in fear of being detected by their torturers!
One positive way of preventing traumatised people from entering this country, is to remove the troops from their land. They are not helping civilians, and are only there to protect those whose goal is to steal their resources - Australia is party to the misery, death and destruction in Afghanistan(and Iraq). In Afghanistan, the US want a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea in order to steal the oil and gas, and to research other minerals in the country. We all should know by now, about what’s going in Iraq re their oil reserves! I feel ashamed, and will be sending an email to Chris Evans and Kevin Rudd about this shameful decision! The Opposition and their racist hate campaign are to be condemned also! Some of us are smart enough to understand the real reasons for singling out these people for inhumane decisions. Shame on them!
Luip
The problem is that conditions in Indonesian detention prisons are so bad now that they make a tent on Christmas Island look like Buckingham palace.
Added to this is the fact that the Indonesians are no longer releasing people who have been found to be refugees by UNHCR so they are languishing in these hellholes for months. We know what that does to people.
I have text messages begging for help to get out- 9 men in one cell 5metres by 3 metres- day in -day out. FOOD is rice rice rice impregnated with chili oil- occasional tea bag. Nothing to do - nothing to hope for but freedom.
Some are able to bribe their way out and they do and then it is straight onto a boat to make sure that they do not get picked up and back to hellhole.
By stitching up these punitive conditions in Indo combined with a 40 year queue to get resettled- Australia has ensured a steady stream of boats.
The deal clincher has been the opposition howling about pushing boats back with the result that people are panicking and saying - we must go now before they close the doors. AND HOW RIGHT THEY WERE
And again we break our own law for politics. To change the processing methods we would have to change paragraph 3 by law yet we claim we can suspend claims from 2 small groups based on a non-existent review of over all circumstances in two countries that are mostly likely to be refugees.
Tom Allard, Paul Maley and the bolta and Akerman need to be fucking gutted with the bullshit they have been peddling.
1. The UNHCR in Indonesia is paid for by us, they do what we demand they do. Go slow, lock them up, deport them. We dictate, they do.
2. The UNHCR specifically and factually says that giving refugees a ride is NOT PEOPLE SMUGGLING, BUT OUR MEDIA DON’T HEAR.
3. As Pamela says, Indonesia is not signatory to the refugee convention.
4. Deterrence is illegal under Article 31 of the refugee convention and Article 14 of the convention which are enshrined in our own fucking laws.
Anyone want to censor my language today?
Assessment of protection claims
Applications for Protection visas are assessed by departmental decision-makers trained in the law, policy and procedures concerning the Refugees Convention and Protection visas.
The decision-maker assesses the applicant’s claims to Australia’s protection against the Refugees Convention definition of a refugee, Australia’s domestic laws, and all information about the conditions in the asylum seeker’s country of citizenship or usual residence. Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. All applicants are asked to attend an interview to discuss their claims and provide further information if required. Where needed, the department arranges qualified interpreters for any interviews.
Decisions are made on the individual circumstances of each applicant’s claims. There is no blanket approval or refusal of applications based on broad assumptions, for example about the safety of particular countries.
Applicants who are refused a Protection visa will receive a written decision setting out the reasons for that decision. You have the right to seek a review of this decision by an independent tribunal, either the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The department will provide you with information on how to apply for this review and the timeframe in which you need to apply.
The mainstream media will get off scott free ShepherdM.
Sadly, it has become how it works in this country. Never mind the truth. Never mind the human cost. They just beat up stories and make them larger than life to the point that they are issues that must be acted upon regardless of the consequences.
It is appalling but so long as those who own the media have their own right-wing mercenary agendas to push, basic humanity will run a long last. And of course, the currnt opposition is tarred with the same brush.
pamela, I am not saying it is a good option to hang around in indonesia but those who are outside detention centres now in indonesia (thankfully most are not in detention centres) may prefer not to be locked up anywhere, especially for six months or longer in Chrsitmas island or darwin waiting to perhaps be deported when the new country info comes in. their options are between worse and worse.
And now we have two leaders with weather vanes as their moral compass.
the main point I think is that there is currently no new country information, just a review taking place which may lead to a change in inforamtion, so this change in policy is based on nothing except politics. A sri lankan or an afghan who was a refugee yesterday would still assessed to be a refugee today if they were assessed under the current UN info… this is nasty territory.
Makes me sick to my stomach. Govt travel advisory still advises Australians to NOT travel to Afghanistan or Sri Lanka as both are too dangerous - but obviously not so dangerous as to warrant dealing with people seeking asylum??? Or is it a case of good enough for ‘them’ even though not safe enough for ‘us’.
How far we have fallen from the hopes of Nov 2007. I won’t be door-knocking for the ALP this time around!
I do not have numbers but there most of the singles including under age kids are locked up in Indo now. If not they are in hiding and starving. There are many immigrasi prisons -some worse than others. Kupang very bad- far end of indo and guards are allowed to bash asylum seekers.
Re info- some document confected by DFAT ??? who is being used on Christmas Island as of afew weeks ago to dispel any claims of persecution in Ghanzni where 60% of Hazaras are coming from. DIAC have refused to give legal reps a copy but they are quoting it in interviews to challenge asylum seekers about their claims.
Remember in 2004 when we said that Saddam was gone so OK for Iraqis to go back and in 2001 when we did similar with Hazaras
The only solution I can see is to stop our ‘democratic’ operations in Afghanistan and stop supporting morderous government of Sri Lanka; help the people to recover there or just leave them in peace so they don’t get killed by our democratic values.
The totally corrupt UN should read their own Charter about equal rights of all membership states and their equal rights to protect their borders. What are Australian soldiers and other unauthorised arrivals doing there? Seeking visas?
It is interesting to observe that we show more anger towards Japanese whalers and more sympathy towards whales than to all children of war stricken countries.
We are absolutely shocked with child abuse … performed by others; particularly Catholic Church. All other churches and social organisations preying on minors seem to be immune. Afterall, child abuse has become a huge and profitable international business and we should make every effort to support free market economy.
We do not give a toss for children abused, crippled and murdered by the coalition of the killing. Will they ever get the right to claim any compensation?
What sort of values do we really represent?
‘Do as I say and do not do what I do’??? Really pathetic. Feeling sorry for Chapel Corby? Not any longer. Drug trafficking is not covered by the border protection BS. Free market economy.
And as for Mr. Abbot: Neither Christian nor politician. Perhaps he should be better off sticking to the boxing ring?
And again Tom Allard prints rubbish without any proof that the story was even true. Fuckwit will get people killed and should be sacked by the AGE for peddling his tripe one too many times.
Human trafficking ‘getting worse everywhere’
Posted 12 minutes ago
A senior representative with the UN’s High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Indonesia says human trafficking is getting worse everywhere, not just in Indonesia.
Manuel Jordao has denied telling an Australian newspaper that people smuggling in Indonesia is “out of control”.
Mr Jordao says it is no secret human trafficking is increasing but he says Indonesia is not the only place battling the problem.
He says newspaper reports in Australia, quoting him as saying people smuggling is “out of control” in Indonesia are incorrect.
He says the numbers in Indonesia are not that alarming.
“No I don’t think it’s out of control. What I think is needed is inter-state cooperation, that is what I discussed,” he said.
He says less than 4,000 asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR in Indonesia.
“Most of the people of concern to the UNHCR who arrive in Indonesia arrive after having used trafficking services and have paid for it,” he said.
Mr Jordao would not comment on the Australian Government’s decision today to suspend processing all immigration claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
Boo-hoo, Lefties.
Did nice Uncle Kevvie-wevvie bweak your widdle hearts? Oh, so sad.
Looks like all that crap about ‘push factors’ was, er, just crap, wasn’t it?
#ROFLMFAO#
Hi Marilyn,
I’d just like to congratulate you on helping the Rudd Government reach such a desirable interim solution to the asylum seeker problem. Let it be said that the crude bleating of people of your ilk does more to influence the thinking of genuine Australians than does calm and rational debate. In other words, Australians don’t like being told how to think!
Have a great weekend!
Peter de Quetteville.
[Edited for excessive insults - Mod]
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/12/2601772/afghanistans-human-rights-record.html
What has changed in the few weeks this report was done?
Boo-hoo, Lefties.
Did nice Uncle Kevvie-wevvie bweak your widdle hearts? Oh, so sad.
Looks like all that crap about ‘push factors’ was, er, just crap, wasn’t it?
#ROFLMFAO#
haha way to be a sociopathic weirdo. you must be a blast at parties.
While I do not agree with the Govts decision re Sri Lankan and Afgan asylum seekers, I can’t help having a little sympathy for the Govt as they are obviously being swayed by the medias consistent attacks on them, and the increasing public alarm about the number of boats arriving, as well as that big mouth Scott Morrisson peddling his political crap on behalf of the not so Christian Abbottt, what a pair of hypocrites.
As was mentioned earlier, this issue could well do a great deal of harm to Labor at the polls, so they had to make a move. On News radio a few minutes ago Morrisson calls it an election stunt, and confirmed the Coalition will go back to the bad old Howard days. He also had the audacity to say the Coalition were only interested in stopping the boats, they were not interested in the political benefits or otherwise, votes were not a consideration, YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!Lies fall easily from his lips.
Today’s hysteria is a micro second in the history of people displacement. Good
for comment/bytes/per/sec but otherwise net suffering will not change.
Forty years ago C.A. Bell hopefully suggested we would all be an even shade
colourwise in a few generations. J G Ballard at the same time wrote about
blindly moving south in a quagmire of melting permafrost.
It seems we are making no progress except towards melting permafrost. Is it
impossible to hope for a bipartisan approach to immigration and refugee policy?
God is a heavy club used by both our current political leaders to batter the other/outsider/core constituents etc. As I understand it most representations of God deal with compassion for the dispossessed.
Why not in Australia??
@ Peter Phelps
‘Boo-hoo, Lefties.
Did nice Uncle Kevvie-wevvie bweak your widdle hearts? Oh, so sad.
Looks like all that crap about ‘push factors’ was, er, just crap, wasn’t it?’
Not crap at all. The push factors are there, and will be for a while, at least to some extent, until the unrest in these countries subsides enough.
The right-wing wowsers have successfully forced the government into a position to suspend things while they take a breath and analyse the situations for these two countries … mainly because the ridiculous misinformation it has been peddling has warped the view of the average man in the street.
The racist nonsense that the opposition and media has whipped up is appalling, and makes me ashamed to think that these people have been allowed to accumulate the power to do so. No ‘Aussie fair-go’ in the right-wing attitude. Just selfish, racist, shameful mistreatment of people in need. But then again — it is the right-wing way — be it pensioners and carers at home, or refugees fearing persecution from overseas.
Here in our cushy little country (with our guaranteed healthcare/food/shelter welfare state) most of us have no idea what it is like to fear for your life or that of your family’s lives.
We are mostly tolerant of another’s religions/ethnic origins. How can we possibly understand what it is like to be shot on site merely because of our religious affiliations? We are suitably appalled at the treatment f Jews in WWII. We get that. Why can’t we get this?
I just hope the government decides to suspend the suspensions sooner rather than later. I understand why they’ve done this, but I dearly wish they had stuck to their guns and defied the MSM and right-wing wowsers who agitate merely for political gain.
I wouldn’t be too concerned, the Government have said it is temporary. There’s an election in the air and Rudd will sell himself to get votes, there’s no need for more evidence than this. Once he’s re-elected he will open the gates again, so don’t fret too much you guys.
In addition to Marylin
As the Australian government decided to seek advice from the United Nations, let us hope that the UN would base their sage advice on their own
CHARTER AND THE CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
GENERAL PROVISIONS:
Article 27
The Contracting States shall issue identity papers to any refugee in their territory who does not have a valid travel document
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Article 1.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
The collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have enforceable right to compensation.
Article 12
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
Article 20
Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Principle 2
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, spiritually, morally and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of las for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
Principle 4
The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security
Principle 8
The child shall in all circumstances be among the first to receive protection and relief.
Principle 9
The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty
As I understand, the refugee haters are not aware of the book of law or are they law haters, too..
Well, if the majority of Australians do hate the war victims there is a solution:
We either lobby in the UN to change the contents of the Convention we signed or withdraw our UN Membership status.
Tertium non datur.
According to the UN Charter Afghanistan has exactly the same rights to protect their borders as Australia or Iraq.
Or.. am I missing on something?
So what have Abbott and co been doing the last 5 months? Feeling sorry for the occupants of the boats?
So this is Rudd setting the foundation for his run to the UN while securing the massive redneck vote in his home state. The icing on the cake is a surge in home support spilling into state seats and saving Bligh. The goals of our two major government contenders isn’t about people but their own survival. They’ll play any game if delivers them personal and collective gains.
You all got totally pwned by Kevin Rudd. All that crap about a new moralim, well where is it now? Labor sucked up to the middle class Left, got their votes and have now shafted them when it was politically expedient to do so.
So again, haha.
[Edit for issuing impolite instructions to other commenters - Mod]
@ shepherdmarilyn…ditto Phelps, you are the last one to discuss morality and humanity, [Edited for insults - Mod]
It is laughable that everyone is so cynical that they think people merely run for politics for the power rush.
Roxon put the case, and I agree with it, that most start out with the idea that they can make a difference.
The reality of government is often a question of doing the necessary, even if morally it might not sit well. Idealism has to be tempered practicality.
The current govt has a massive reform agenda, most of which is for the public good (not to feather nests of mates in business, as can be said of their opponents at times). Of course they want to be re-elected — that agenda hasn’t been fulfilled, especially since a lot of that reform is stymied in the senate.
@shepherdmarilyn@pamela@zena and others who condemn Rudd’s actions!
To the rest of you - you don’t even deserve to have your names mentioned! As marilyn so succintly put it - Piss off!
Why is it only those on the left who give a damn about human rights? Why do govts pick and choose what Laws/Agreements etc that we’re party to! We restate our assertion that we uphold basic human rights, sign the Declaration on the Rights of the Child and the Rights Zena has referred to, and yet we can act like this?
Those journalists? (so called) should be bloody well ashamed of themselves. Unlike DAVID I have no sympathy for the govt. If they were fair dinkum, they’d get out of Afghanistan as the ‘ordinary’ people want, instead of participating and protecting those who are causing all the death and misery. Damned cheek to cause the misery and then blame the victims and others for their demise? All this for resources! Money, and to hell with killing people on a grand scale to get it! Disgusting!
The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11? The Bush Administration had plans to invade both countries prior to their election. By early 2001, they were in operation mode - 9/11 just gave them an ‘excuse’ to peddle their propaganda and pull the wool over the world’s eyes!
This is in contravention of the Migration Act - it doesn’t allow countries to discriminate against people from certain countries re their right to asylum. (just heard this on ABC radio news headlines - 5.30pm) We’ll give that the middle finger too, no doubt!
Push factors are complete BS. See what academics Tim Hatton and Audrey Lim wrote in 2005:
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/Staff/hatton/pdf/TampaAgendaRev.pdf
Conclusion
There has been a significant tightening in asylum policies all over the world in
recent years. Most developed countries have increased their scrutiny of arrivals
since 11 September 2001, especially those from regions that generate asylum
seekers. Certain countries have implemented more draconian policies, with
Australia being the best-known example, followed by New Zealand and the UK.
In each case the data reveal a decline in applications, suggesting that the
respective governments achieved their aims of effectively deterring asylum
applications. But given changing conditions in source countries and the changing
attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugees worldwide, it is not sufficient
simply to observe the trend in applications for one country alone. The effects of
policy can only be isolated by comparing different destinations and by controlling
for changing conditions in origin countries.
Our estimates largely confirm the trends that are observed in the raw data.
The analysis of quarterly data gives particularly clear results: the ‘Tampa effect’
for Australia was to reduce asylum applications by more than a half. There were
also significant reductions in applications to New Zealand from the beginning of
2002 and to the UK from the beginning of 2003. But the results also indicate a
significant fall in applications to Germany and a significant increase in France
from the end of 2001. When we disaggregate by country of origin, these results
are largely confirmed although they are weaker in the annual data. The fall in
Australian applications after 2001 remains large and significant, although the
policy effects for the UK seem to be much weaker in the annual data.
The results presented here suggest that, when tough asylum policies are
enforced and when they are widely publicized, the effects on applications can be
dramatic. The most important deterrent polices are restricting access to territory
combined with punitive detention and deportation policies that prevent illegal
arrivals from assimilating into the host community even though their asylum
applications are unsuccessful. In addition, the Tampa incident served to
communicate Australia’s tough stance to the world and it seems to have
discouraged applications even among legal arrivals. There are two remaining
caveats.
First, even when the ebb and flow of conflict in source regions is taken
into account, there are other forces that determine the trends in asylum
applications that are still not fully understood. The second is that while policy
seems to have been particularly effective in reducing applications in Australia, and
to a lesser extent in New Zealand and the UK, this should not be taken as an
argument in favour of such policies. The fact that they are effective does not
necessarily mean that they are desirable.
jenauthor, I agree with you generally, but maybe try saying to a vicitm of torture on a boat that their idealism has to be tempered by practicality - these are very real human beings who are just as deserving of a life as any of us. I think it is a no brainer that the governemnt sees this as a vote turning election issue, being pushed by agenda driven media and the oppoistion, and they are going to do what it takes to keep it from getting on top of them politically. The game of staying in office or getting back into office just becomes bigger than what they believe is the right thing to do. Neither side is brave enough to show leadership on this issue.
Yep JENAUTHOR never mind the humanity side of it, just the politics eh.
The Australian newspaper says refugee groups and the opposition are now allies in condemning the government on this issue so I don’t know what anyone is arguing about - we’re all one big happy family now, slowly sinking in the sewrage being spat out by both major parties.
Alright Leftards,
I’m back to cheer up your miserable lives. It’s late on a Friday evening, so everyone join hands and sing with me:
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
You all know the rest, I’m sure.
Avagoodweekend (but don’t abuse me!)
Peter de Quetteville.
Years ago it was suggested to me that I run for Parlt. I said, no way! I wouldn’t be ‘duchessed’ and I would NOT sell out my principles for any party - no matter what! There is no way I could allow this sort of action to take place. I’m horrified that the women in the govt aren’t screaming. I’m always tougher on women who sell out - they should know/do better! How would I feel if these people were my sons? Just awful! And what about the kids and unaccompanied minors? I shudder to think! Mental illness patients of tomorrow as the new Australian of the Year stated.
I got a book from the library some time ago, that documented the forced deportations of people from about 60 yrs ago until the time of the book. The attitudes weren’t much different to now - it was shameful. They even went to the extent of a ‘citizen test’ similar to Howards, but it was deliberately slanted so that nobody could pass. eg. a person from Germany was given the test in Russian, or Swedish or? and when they didn’t pass, that was the reason used to piss them off home! Just awful! It’s a real eye opener!
The smart arses on here who think this is funny or assert that those who oppose it are lefties etc should read ‘Following them Home’ about the forced deportations of recent times. SBS also had a doco about a man from Afghanistan? (not sure) but he was deported, and his 2 little girls were killed - he asserted all the way through, that those who were after him would kill his family as pay back. He took the journalist to the grave side - it was just horrific! I have no problem with the accusation of being a ‘bleeding heart’? Rather that than prove that I don’t have one, or have no decency or compassion!
@Peter de Quetteville - And who do you care about apart from yourself? Are you ever moved to take a stand and speak out for someone else, who’s being treated unjustly? Or are you just one selfish bastard who uses the ‘jack system’ in regard to everyone else. I have news for you. One day, somewhere, life will catch up with you - as it generally does! You will be unable to cope with the enormity of it, as you’re one selfish bastard who never shows compassion to anyone. I hope that ‘time’ comes soon! Don’t expect compassion by others either - you won’t deserve it! When it happens, I hope you think back to this day! And I assert the same for the other drop kicks here, who are just cruel and vicious people!
Alternet website; http://www.alternet.org/story/146359
“Gardez, Afghanistan: US Special Operations forces surround a home where a party is taking place for the birth of a grandson. Two men come out to see why they are being surrounded. They are shot dead. The US soldiers later report they found three women inside the house, gagged and murdered by their own relatives.
The Times of London later reports that the women were killed by the American soldiers. Not only that. To hide the murder, the soldiers dug bullets out of the women’s bodies and washed the wounds with alcohol to hide the evidence. One of the women was a pregnant mother of 10; another was a pregnant mother of six; the third was a teenage girl.
No one has been punished in this incident either.”
The journalist re this horror was interviewed on PM a couple of evenings ago. He’s a brave man! This is just a snapshot into the life of people in Afghanistan. There’s been too many incidents like this!
Just a ‘snapshot’ of life in Afghanistan. last year, at least 98 civilians were killed by american/nato forces! Horrific!
@ Surfer ‘
‘Yep JENAUTHOR never mind the humanity side of it, just the politics eh.’
That wasn’t what I was saying — my major beef is with the MSM who use and abuse minor political stories to make unnecessary headlines and divert the understanding of the average voter who either cannot be bothered or are incapable of understanding the deeper layers of an issue.
The MSM garner this power to sway public opinion without reference or concern for the humanitarian consequences of their action.
Conscience has no bearing on what they say or do.
Todays deaths from a housefire is a prime example. They continue, by throwing the reference, to scare people about insulation despite the fact that police/fire have said that the fire started on the floor. A proportion of people who see the story just link the two items (fire & insulation) and are made more afraid.
I remember the press baying for freedom of information to be easier and simpler — but with that comes responsibility, and I for one, shudder to think what they might do with ‘delicate’ information.
Retractions, when they come, are given lip-service only. I follow what happens, naively hoping that one day, the press will return to it’s actual job and report, and not continue to create the news, or at the very least warp it.
@ Liz
‘Years ago it was suggested to me that I run for Parlt. ‘
I’d run in a minute if I thought a left-leaning, egalitarian with no political affiliations could win a federal senate seat (in NSW). But methinks the cost and campaigning would be a wasted effort.
Well after this little beauty of Rudds they can never say Abbott is playing the boat people card again. Rudd has just taken ownership of that.
Yeah, insulation has never caused a single bloody fire. That would be the electrical wiring.
Perhaps the government rather than listening to a band of very small minority but very vocal band of latte sipping leftists has decided to listen to the people who actually vote and change elections.
The lefties may scream the loudest… but they still only get ONE VOTE come election day. Remember that next time Rudd when you go on one of these socialist leftwing experimental escapades with our country.
@ Truth
‘next time Rudd when you go on one of these socialist leftwing experimental escapades with our country’
What socialist leftwing experimental escapades would they be? Wanting to fix health care in this country? Giving refugees a fair go? Try to get some kind of environmental policy in place? Trying to get as many people working as possible despite a massive economic downturn? Trying to get as many students a well-rounded education with the current technology?
Stop me when I get to something socialist left-wing and experimental.
Thanks Rena for putting up the articles of the International Declarations. They should remind everyone why those Declarations were written the way they were after the horrors of refugee status in the early 20th century arising out of WW1 and WW2 and the various other wars and revolutions.
Rudd, despite his protestations to the contrary, is poll driven, and he is no doubt doing this because something in the poll results that he is getting is telling him these moves will be popular with the electorate in the States that he needs to win to win the next election - Queensland, NSW and Victoria. He is certainly taking a leaf out of Howard’s book and satisfying the demands of the populace across the spectrum of politics, including the ex Hansonites. Rudd thinks he needs every vote he can get and this is the way to maximise votes. Those of us in inner city electorates who think this is wrong, and unfair and contrary to international conventions can fulminate but we really make it easier for Rudd to win over the rest of the population, as Bernard Keane says in the article above.
Of course Rudd could take a stand and defy the electorate and play for their respect even if they disagreed with him but that seems very unlikely given his past and present form.
pamela, the numbers in indonesia are currently about 15% in detention of the around 4,000 there now. Some are kids. Most who are detained have been dumped in there when they were caught trying to come on boats, as you would know. It is very hard to get kids out of these places in Indonesia but even worse conditions are for those in Malaysia and Thailand who no-one talks about. These countries have large populations of refugees and asylum seekers and they are treated appallingly.
I don’t know why after two and a half hours, my last two posts are still ‘awaiting moderation’, other than they disprove the Leftist Groupthink on this board.
Well, here is the truncated version… Push factors are complete BS. See what academics Tim Hatton and Audrey Lim wrote in 2005, in analysing the effect of Howrd’s tough immigration laws:
“The results presented here suggest that, when tough asylum policies are enforced and when they are widely publicized, the effects on applications can be dramatic. The most important deterrent polices are restricting access to territory combined with punitive detention and deportation policies that prevent illegal arrivals from assimilating into the host community even though their asylum applications are unsuccessful. In addition, the Tampa incident served to communicate Australia’s tough stance to the world and it seems to have discouraged applications even among legal arrivals.”
Game over, Lefties. You lose.
P Phelps, why did the boats increase substantially when John Howard came into power in 1996? In 1998 they really went up with thousands of afghans and Iraqis coming in particular. Is it because Howard was a much softer touch than Labor who introduced detention centres? The timing of the increase under Howard is about the same as Rudd coming into office.
Once more for the tough-immigration-laws denialists (hello Luip!)…
Conclusions from Hatton and Lim:
1. Tough laws lead to a decrease in illegals, and
2. Howard’s laws had the effect of reducing illegals at a rate greater than anywhere else in the world.
So let’s test those assumptions. If Hatton and Lim are correct, then if the laws were weaken, we would expect to see:
1. An increase in the number of illegals, and
2. Claims for asylum growing at rates higher than in other countries.
Change the key variable:
Kevvie weakens the asylum seeker laws in late 2008.
Observable results since that time:
1. An increase in the number of illegals; and
2. Claims for asylum growing at rates higher than in other countries.
I think that is game over. Hatton and Lim clearly do not like the Howard laws, but have the integrity to at least acknowledge that they have been effective both in absolute and, more importantly, relative terms in keeping out unauthorised entrants.
This is the conclusion is full. Notice that they normed the results for push factors, so it was a straight analysis of the effect of Howard’s tough laws….
“Conclusion
“There has been a significant tightening in asylum policies all over the world in recent years. Most developed countries have increased their scrutiny of arrivals since 11 September 2001, especially those from regions that generate asylum seekers. Certain countries have implemented more draconian policies, with Australia being the best-known example, followed by New Zealand and the UK.
“In each case the data reveal a decline in applications, suggesting that the respective governments achieved their aims of effectively deterring asylum applications. But given changing conditions in source countries and the changing attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugees worldwide, it is not sufficient simply to observe the trend in applications for one country alone. The effects of policy can only be isolated by comparing different destinations and by controlling for changing conditions in origin countries.
“Our estimates largely confirm the trends that are observed in the raw data. The analysis of quarterly data gives particularly clear results: the ‘Tampa effect’ for Australia was to reduce asylum applications by more than a half. There were also significant reductions in applications to New Zealand from the beginning of 2002 and to the UK from the beginning of 2003. But the results also indicate a significant fall in applications to Germany and a significant increase in France from the end of 2001. When we disaggregate by country of origin, these results
are largely confirmed although they are weaker in the annual data. The fall in Australian applications after 2001 remains large and significant, although the policy effects for the UK seem to be much weaker in the annual data.
“The results presented here suggest that, when tough asylum policies are enforced and when they are widely publicized, the effects on applications can be dramatic. The most important deterrent polices are restricting access to territory combined with punitive detention and deportation policies that prevent illegal arrivals from assimilating into the host community even though their asylum applications are unsuccessful. In addition, the Tampa incident served to communicate Australia’s tough stance to the world and it seems to have discouraged applications even among legal arrivals. There are two remaining caveats.
“First, even when the ebb and flow of conflict in source regions is taken into account, there are other forces that determine the trends in asylum applications that are still not fully understood. The second is that while policy seems to have been particularly effective in reducing applications in Australia, and to a lesser extent in New Zealand and the UK, this should not be taken as an argument in favour of such policies. The fact that they are effective does not necessarily mean that they are desirable.
There is no such thing as an unauthorised entrant Phelps, we have put the convention into the fucking migration act and that is the end of the story.
There is nothing on earth that over rules the right to seek asylum from persecution.
Might as well now start claiming we did a great job turning away the jews in 1938 but I don’t think too many people will agree with that position.
Changing the policy of how people are treated is nothing to do with changing the law - I do wish little cretins would understand the difference.
The fact that we have been breaking the law for 20 years is the point and stopping anyone from being safe is a crime against humanity.
The idiotic notion that we can just lock up people for 6 months based on nothing at all, without charge or trial is just that and will lead to all sorts of problems.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20masri
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “unlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950’s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.”
Here is the fucking law as it was in 2004 and it has not been changed one iota.
Okay, Rudd now onto the far bigger problem: visa over-stayers. What’s your plan there?
so why did the arrivals increase significantlly when Howard came to power? I can’t see your answer. Maybe that’s because it doesn’t fit with your agenda? I just see a furphy argument that doesn’t hold up and I am not interested in all the crap you are regurgitating, there are much more sound arguments about boat arrival numbers and why they go up and down at particular times. I don’t think you’ve done your research. Just think about one simple fact that millions of Afghans started returning to Afghanistan after the Taliban fell at the end of 2001.
Hey Crikey commenters, I predicted something like this would happen on Pure Poison but was ‘criticised’ would be putting it somewhat mildly. Good to see my political nose for it hasn’t got blocked up. Rudd will do much, much more before the election to annoy all of you bleeding heart compassionists.
Nobody cares, Col. Cheers.
“Compassionist”. Now there’s a dirty word. I’m surprised the mods let that one through. It always amazes me that those who consider themselves “right thinking” conservatives can put so much bile and venom into terms like “compassionist”. You would be the first to remind us of how we are a a so-called Christian nation (isn’t that why we;re trying to stop the godless hordes?) and yet the Christ and all he stands for would be at the absolute top of your sh!t list.
I think I’ll get a “Compassionist” t-shirt made up. I will wear it with pride, and it will help the “right thinkers” identify me for crucifixion practice until the real Compassionist returns.
@Luip…
Q:So why did the arrivals increase significantlly when Howard came to power?
A: I don’t know. I haven’t seen any academic research which would offer a clear answer. I have seen clear academic research as to why illegal entrants DECREASED under Howard - and it was due to tougher laws. Not reduced ‘push factors’. Tougher laws. If you believe that Hatton and Lim’s research is invalid, then disprove it. Otherwise STFU.
Q:Maybe that’s because it doesn’t fit with your agenda?
A: I don’t have ‘an agenda’, other to point out that your hero Kevvie is a big, fat opportuunist and you fools got sucked in. Sucked in.
“all the crap you are regurgitating” - it’s a peer reviewed paper in a respected journal by a couple of academics who clearly don’t like Howard’s laws, but cannot deny the obvious - unlike the posters here who continue to spout the lies about ‘push factors’.
“there are much more sound arguments about boat arrival numbers and why they go up and down at particular times” - wow, what a rebuttal to an academic paper which looked SPECIFICALLY at the question of whether the Howard laws were responsible not only for the numerical reduction in claimants, but the comparable reduction in claimants! If you have research proving that the laws were ineffective, put it forward.
“Just think about one simple fact that millions of Afghans started returning to Afghanistan after the Taliban fell at the end of 2001” - which is just what Hatton and Lim did. They normed the results to take into account push factors. Real the whole academic paper before you dismiss it!
You just can’t handle the truth: Howard’s laws worked, Rudd 2008 revisions were a failure. But, most importantly, the whole ‘push factor’ argument is a discredited lie.
And not discreditied by me. Discredited by a pair of academics who didn’t particularly like Howard’s laws. They are your own people - and they are saying that you are wrong.
Sorry to dispel your illusions. But ‘push factors’ are a big fat myth. Get over it.
[Edited for extremely bad manners - Mod]
@Marilyn, who says: “There is no such thing as an unauthorised entrant”.
LeftFail. From the DIC website:
“The sensitivity in some quarters to the use of the words ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’ or ‘unauthorised’ to describe asylum seekers arriving without Australia’s permission seems to have at its root vigorous attempts by some in the community to mislead the public into believing a myth that all unauthorised arrivals are asylum seekers and that all asylum seekers have a right to enter a country of choice without authority and therefore ‘can never be illegal’. This is just not true. The reality is clear in international law and has been made crystal clear by the High Court of Australia.
“The facts are:
•Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority, a country which is not their country of nationality.
•The use of the word ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’ to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention. This is because the Refugees Convention (Article 31) explicitly refers to the “illegal entry or presence” of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country “without authorisation”.
“Accordingly, describing a person as an illegal, unauthorised or unlawful arrival, or their presence as illegal, unlawful or unauthorised is doing no more than using the correct objective descriptions. As reflected in the Refugees Convention, these are the appropriate terms even where a person is found to be a refugee.
“The term ‘asylum seeker’ is not an alternative to the above terms. The term ‘asylum seeker’ is used widely by Refugees Convention signatory countries to identify people awaiting a determination on claims for refugee protection. Asylum seekers who have received such a determination and are recognised as being refugees are referred to as ‘refugees’.
“A person whose asylum claims have been decided and who is not a refugee may still want to stay in a country, but they are not refugees. For such people, it is incorrect and misleading to suggest, through continued use of the term ‘asylum seeker’, that the reason for their continued wish to stay has anything to do with an unresolved claim to need asylum.
“Similarly it is incorrect and misleading to use ‘asylum seeker’ as a general term to describe all persons who enter a country illegally. People enter illegally for a range of reasons, and in Australia as in other countries many never seek asylum.
You know, this is just too easy. If this is the best the Left can do, you really do deserve your Prime Minister Rudd.
Yes but [edit] the convention also says it is illegal to punish people for entering without documents and Australian law also says it is legal to arrive without papers.
So do give up the bile and hate, you are wrong.
And an asylum seeker is any person who claims protection under the international system, they might not all be refugees but they are all asylum seekers.
‘For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share….’
Our saccharine, self-congratulatory and self-deluding national anthem is wrong, apparently.
Mr Abbott has announced that the Lord Jesus wouldn’t accept every refugee so bearing in mind that he apparently knows the mind of God, it seems that the PM has been suitably impressed and is making his own pitch for the certainty of infallible, Holy communication.
It’s left to mere mortals, seemingly, to press for humane understanding and compassion for those poor wretches who seek safety and succour for themselves and their families. As every non-indigenous Australian is descended from immigrants, it’s astonishing that this is so hard for most to comprehend.
This current crisis has been created by the tabloids and the Opposition, desperate for anything with which to discredit the government. That human beings with little to lose have become pawns in a tawdry political exercise is not surprising, but that the government has become a willing victim to this cynicism and reacted to appease the ignorant and prejudiced and the downright bloody selfish, is disgraceful. Once again, Realpolitik triumphs over basic decency.
However, we’re lucky that the leaders of our two major parties are such God-fearing, practising Christians. Imagine just how dreadful things would be for hapless asylum seekers if they weren’t.
Liz45
Posted Friday, 9 April 2010 at 6:38 pm
Thankyou for posting this story, I saw it on http://www.democracynow.org . Yes Afghanistan is definitely much much safer these days -how about Evans, Rudd, Abbott, Morrison and the other anti-people dickheads who’ve posted comments here head on over there and spend a month living with Afghanis and see how safe it is. Sickening, fu*k the lot of them.
@APHRA - absolutley!
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
The 2 political forces in this Australia acting on the world’s harassed refugees (I was one at 3 years)
The Labour Party
An actual Government trying to do the right and legal thing while trying desperately to preserve an important look for a sophisticated international reputation and cope with, at the same time, a look for those Australians who only really know what their (ignorant) gut feeling tells them they think is right, when thinking ‘about their rights’, me and I.
Ugly can be legitimate especially if it owns a vote.
Countering this by a command or just ignoring it won’t work so there’s only one way to be fair to refugees if you put that aim above all the politics.
Maybe we, as intelligent good citizens of the world, should help our Government cope (it’s our Government not a party).
The Opposition with a no brainer policy on refugees
‘A barking dog’ because everyone knows (no brainer) that a barking dog keeps the intruder away by and large or initially. If you cross the dog’s threshold it bites you while its owner shouts ‘I warned you’. Eventually it’s noise even makes its owner sick.
@DANIEL Is doing ‘it’ drunk (getting off) and it seems he’s just cum.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
@APHRA
You’re one of us, my parents went through all the horrors to bring me to life and opportunity as a refugee when I was too young to know what was going on, I agree with you but.
If ‘appease’ is a method to achieve rather than a statement of ‘principle or philosophy’ and it achieves the ultimate aim and even creates the opportunity to bring resisters into the light then ‘appease’ is a top method BUT it remains a method as long as the doer remains superior to it becoming a personality trait, principle or philosophy.
We know now that it makes you disgusted, not as a method I hope, let’s not frighten the Government by acting out your disgust.
This forum is so bullying and abusive. You really are disgusting P Phelps, go and spit your bile at someone else. Have you tried couselling or detox? You obviously can’t argue a position so in limpness you resort to cowardly, angry hatred. I just asked a question that you can’t answer and look at the state you get yourself into… Your logic says that Howard was the biggest softy on refugees we have ever had. More people came under Howard than any other leader. Ok, well I didn’t think he seemed to be so nice and welcoming back then but I guess that is possible. You can believe that if you want but if all you have is one paper to quote, i don’t think you’ve done your research on this one. We’ve been debating this for years now and I have no interest in going over it all again. My question was simple.
You hate refugees, why spend so much time posting on a forum about them? Must be a love/hate complex thing. Defintely need counselling.
COMING BACK TO SUBJECT
Is it necessary for an elected Australian government to be “tough on refugees” in order to remain in power?
Do Australians and their media demand as a pre-requisate for electability that an elected government demonstrtae forcefully that they are mean, harsh and tough.
Are compassion and reasonableness not electable traits in this country anymore?
THOUGHTS ANYONE?
Pamela, I am a pessimist on the questions you ask. Government should not have to be tough on refugees to win elections but sadly because of the nature of our electorate (diverse, very different in the city to regional areas), the way our politics are conducted (poll and focus group driven), the lack of education to parts of the electorate about the way the refugee and asylum seeker system works in the world (consider some of the ill informed rubbish you read on blogs), latent racism in Australian culture (always dragging this country backwards), shock jocks playing to what they think is populist sentiment and whipping up hysteria about refugees - all of these factors make the politicians think that they have to be tough on refugees and asylum seekers to win elections. The media in this country are dominated by conservative forces who have a populist bent. If governments are not harsh and tough, they make them harsh and tough. The last thing the media does is educate the populace about the facts. Compassion and reason - that ‘s for the religious and inner city lefties, nothing to do with real politik.
well obviously with what has just happened no-one believes they can get elected on compassion and being reasonable to outsiders. But no-one in recent times has tried so it’s hard to know. We all know there is a well polled defined number who will always demand toughness on asylum seekers (Hansonism) and it’s the votes that swing that are the battleground. The hardliners on forums like this are irrelevant, as are those of us who support refugees, this is all just venting from people who have entrenched positions. But despite all the recent fearmongering the issue wasn’t getting that much traction, it is a preemptive strike just in case it gets on top of them at the wrong time and the political pressure has been mounting inside and outside the govt. So if a party who is well ahead in the polls, facing Tony Abbott who has little chance of winning, can’t hold the line on this, there is not much immediate hope. The work to inform people in the community of the real issues won’t be done by our leaders so it is up to supporters of refugees to keep doing the hard yards in places where it will have some effect. We are just not there yet but the community work has always been the most important for creating change. No-one is interested in the plane arrivals which represent most of the applications so it is all about dodgy perceptions.
all political parties are the same, just different financial backers.
But, correct me if I am wrong, I haven’t seen a poll yet which is highly in favour of letting asylum seekers, boat people, refugees - whatever, settle in Australia? we are such a conservative country it is embarassing…. and, if people couldn’t work out who the ‘true’ Rudd was, what are they thinking now?????
I’d like to actually see some statistics on the % of boatpeople that are ‘true’ asylum seekers. Am I right in thinking that we might actually be meeting our quota, and more, of asylum seekers? is this just a political game that is getting too much coverage?
I am all for sending back the ‘true’ boatpeople (within reason) to where ever they come from purely to see the drop kick, dreadlocked, law breaking, urine throwing hippees that camp out at Woomera (in outback SA) try and find a meaningful job!
Napolean you won’t see a poll which is highly in favour of immigration in general. It doesn’t mean that people haven’t enjoyed the benefits of Immigration as it keeps happening.
Most arriving by boat are refugees, more than 90% in recent time. Very few are being rejected becasue the overhwelminging numbers are genuine.
If you hate ‘hippees’ then perhaps take that up with them, not with the refugees they attach themselves to.
People all over the world have concerns about immigrants diminishing the home culture. As we have seen in Australia since WWII, most immigrants (including refugees) assimilate very well. My grandparents and my dad were among the first off the boat in terms of non-English-speaking mass immigration, arriving from Latvia. My dad grew up here (albeit he played soccer not Aussie Rules) and his sons (me and my brother) are Aussie as. Two of my step-kids are half Chinese and similarly they are Aussie as. Despite this, many Australians (like many citizens of other countries around the world) have concerns about immigration, particularly with regards to the capacity of immigrants to assimilate. That these concerns are for the most part baseless doesn’t come into it.
Thus the realpolitik of the Government’s decision. To answer Pamela’s very relevant question, I don’t believe that the Government has any choice if it is to be re-elected. As far as the morality of this is concerned, I largely agree with Marilyn. But I’d rather Rudd than Abbott and as much as this decision saddens me, I’ll be supporting Labor again this election.
I don’t have a lot to say here, because the line is being held beautifully,- with the exception of the two congenital defectives. (No insults here Ed, because there are no names……..).
They are entitled to their views of course, but it would be nice to see what those views actually are;-rather than to attack other posters. (Something that has gone unedited. Funny ol’ world init?).
_______________________
‘Are compassion and reasonableness not electable traits in this country anymore? ‘
No they are not. I doubt they ever were. Because IF this ethic had been adopted by ANY Government-then that Government would never invade other countries for the most spurious of reasons.
And we can’t have that, now can we?
_________________________
And for Christ’s sake will you quit it with the Right/Left bullshit!!
Isn’t it glaringly apparent that these to major’s are just shades of each other??
maybe those of us who support refugees should turn on the ALP and back the Coalition now. I know it sounds distasteful but while the ALP think that we will stick with them whatever they do (because we can’t stomach the other side) they will keep vying for right wing votes that are up for grabs. Not everyone in the coalition is comfortable with the hard right stance and as we saw under Howard, when liberals in the party take a stand changes can happen. Under Rudd a lot of advocacy has dissipated becasue of perceptions that things are much better, and they are in some ways, but there is a prevailing impotency that takes over. This is definitely a turning point for many.
@ALEXANDER BERKMAN - Hi Alex - Have you watched ‘Afghan Masssacre’? It’s at http://www.freedocumentaries.org The brave young journalist who covered this shameful story won an award - I think he was the one who was bashed almost to death for his trouble. Others in the story were either killed or threatened. Richard Perle(Bush’s mate? one of “the crazies”) denied it happened, and General Dostum, this Russian now sits in the Afghani Parliament. People should watch this! People are still being murdered, and the US has at least one of their military prisons in Afghanistan. The atmosphere is one of sheer terror for every Afghani. The nonsense by Sen Evans is plain unadulterated crap! He should have a huge horn growing out of the middle of his forehead for telling such blatant lies!
As someone suggested - let him go and live over there with the ordinary people, not wearing flap jackets and helmets, accompanied by brave bastards with guns - living with the mass poverty, weapons, land mines(largest number in the world) kids still dying and losing limbs from the cluster bombs; phosphorus bombs, napalm etc. I fume!
The wonderful Julian Burnside QC, stated this morning, that this action is possibly/probably illegal. I hope he takes Rudd and Co to court! What a lovely human being he is! His wife, Kate, is an artist and she made a beautiful mural dedicated to the 353 asylum seekers from SIEV X. Howard wouldn’t even mention their names, yet she didn’t have a problem finding out each person’s name. Howard also fought the permanent monument being placed in Canberra. If it had been a plane crash or some other tragedy, we’d have had a national day of mourning. If this didn’t show what an absolute arsehole he was/is, then nothing will. It was probably due to his harsh policy of not allowing family reunions that led to such a large number of mainly women and kids dying.
AS TO THE NOW SOFT POLICIES - The fact is, that it was the brave people in the Howard govt(Judy Troeth, Judith Mylan, Petro Giorgio & ?) who stood up to him, that the policies were ‘softened’. After Rudd won the election, there was a committee that worked on policy. Sharmon Stone was the Libs person on that committee; and she DIDN’T DISAGREE WITH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. Only after the boats started to come did she find her tongue. Another bloody hypocrite. The present Lib, Scott Morrisson is an ugly, hateful, racist pathetic little person, who almost spits out his venom!
@JENAUTHOR - I agree with you about the media and their propaganda. A good example of this is what happened in the US leading up to the illegal invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq! There’s a good article on;
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/6362
It’s called ‘The Mega-Lie Called the “War on Terror” : A Masterpiece of Propaganda.
by Richard W Behan, September 2007
It clearly states the reasons; the lies and the revolting actions of the Bush Administration and the almost 40 people in the Administration from the OIL industry. When you understand the billions of dollars involved, and their intent, it’s not difficult to understand why the invasions were/are so brutal, and why they won’t leave until they achieve their goal - domination of the Middle East, and their grubby little hands on the oilfields in Iraq, and the gas and oil in the Caspian Sea, not to mention the copper and iron ore in Afghanistan.
There’s a huge US Embassy in Baghdad that cost hundreds of millions. We still haven’t been told why it was built(wink wink) and when it’s going to be in use and for how long. 21 multi-storey buildings, self sufficient for families (ambassadors, diplomats, ‘oil people’? etc.Cost $600-800 million dollars?
@NAPOLEON - So you’d swap the propable deaths of people sent back to their countries, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka for your personal obsession with people who can only afford clothes from St Vinnies, and who, perhaps have no job? I remind you that Ian Chappell (SA past cricketer) walked out of Channel 9 broadcast booth when Howard walked in while Australia was playing international cricket there! Hardly one of the type you mention. I live in an area that has perhaps the highest youth unemployment in the country - has been that way for about 20 yrs? I’ve met lots of those young people; participated in rallies with them; caught the train with them, and they’re lovely young people with more of a conscience than you obviously have!
My 10? yr old grand-daughter wore tape over her mouth at school one day as a protest against the treatment of asylum seekers - she’s now almost 17. I told her I was proud of her! I remember another time, during one of the protests you mention, she asked me what the little children behind the wire had done? When I said “nothing” her response was, ‘Well, Nanny, why are they in jail”? How would you answer her?
Great messages we’re sending to kids by these actions. We’re concerned about bullying in the playground, cyber bullying, and yet we don’t give a fig about showing kids the very nasty and bullying tactics of the national government? Contradictions on a grand scale!
I’ve been to many rallies, and if it wasn’t for a crook spine and not much money I’d have gone to Baxter too!
LUIP - Support the Coalition? You’re joking right? And if Abbott won, then what? Have the pope in the Lodge? (Incidently, hear the deafening silence(from the mad monk and his mate Pell, re the recent relevations of the pope and priests who abused kids?)
No thanks! My right arm would fall off if I ever voted for those pack of bastards!
Abbott makes an absurd comment, Rudd announces this new procedure on a Friday because he wants to coincide with a News Ltd Poll. Abbott has been playing politics with this since his elevation to the Liberal leadership. Christianity went out the door as it suited his political agenda to attack the asylum seekers and use them as political fodder. Obviously he has received a pontifical dispensation from the German in the headgear and frock in Rome, who ignores child abusers in his own country. What sort of person is Abbott who swears loyalty to this criminal? then degrades those who would seek compassion and shelter from Australians. Catholics in this country should be condemning his stance not supporting it, but they themselves are condemned by their silence.
I probably am joking Liz… but what is your suggestion? just keep supporting the best of a bad lot?
and I don’t think Abbott will win anyway, so it would mean supporting a loser. I have hung in there with Labor since the election but I can’t support Labor now punishing refugees. I think some new stategies in the name of the vulnerable people in the middle of this would be helpful. Any suggestions?
I love the unofficial Rudd advisors and fan club in here. You all forget that our little ‘dentist look-a-like’ was overlooked for the leadership behind Mark Latham along the way. That’s how highly he was rated by his peers.
I actually like him as he’s becoming John Howard mark II. When making your policy on the run Rudd@Howard, always think back to what Johnny would have done…..
@LUIP -The ALP ceased getting my number one vote many elections ago - probably when Bob Hawke gave members the ‘middle finger’ over uranium(1984 I think?). I was and still am disgusted. I vote for The Greens first, and then ALP or a good Independent? My vote probably ends up supporting the ALP, but, what’s the alternative? I’d never vote Coalition - not for anything, and certainly not in recent times. (Too many catholics, too many right wing bastards!)
The alternative to all is to vote informal, and I won’t do that!I was in one of the safest ALP seats in the country, and I really like my Federal Member, a woman, who works really hard and does good things, but who sadly is retiring. I’m now in a Liberal seat, which I resent! She won’t even put the Liberal Party on her info? What does that say? I’m hoping she gets done at the next election. And as usual, she’ll lie low over this lot??She ‘suffers’ from loss of voice when it suits her?
@LAWANDORDER - Yeah, right! I’ll go and check with my family member who lost his job under Howard’s WorstChoices shall I? Perhaps those young people in the yankee fast food chain who were made to be at work but not paid until customers arrived; or perhaps the young people in the hospitality industry who had to provide their own ‘floats’ in their jobs? How’re we going so far! Oh yes, those soon to be dads who were threatened witih the sack if they were with their baby’s mother during her labour and the birth? Haven’t even started on the little kids in jail(detention centres) who bashed their little heads up against the wall, or tore out their hair, or were almost in a catatonic state due to what they saw and experienced while locked up! The ‘awesome’ Minister for Misery Phillip Ruddock who called one little 4 yr old “it” 4 times in an interview! That mongrel is still in the parlt? How about the family from Iraq or Iran, where the 5 yr old boy was thrown in with his father, and the 2 little girls with their mother - all in solitary confinement cells, and not allowed to use a toilet, so the mum used old clothes in a corner?
Yeah! Let’s ask Johhny eh? Should be facing the International Criminal Court, charged with crimes against humanity, that’s just for starters. Add, war crimes etc!
I don’t have to try real hard and think what ‘johnny’ would’ve done. I know what the bastard would’ve done! It’s etched in my brain, along with his nazi colleagues! If he did to Jews what he did to these people, he’d be in court now! If, as a father he did these things to his kids, he’d be sitting in a jail cell now!
@LUIP, it’s the classic story of the left in a centrist democratic society. We can either lose with dignity and honour and achieve absolutely nothing in the process, or we can swallow our pride on certain issues, deliver a more populist position and be in with a chance to at the very least roll out policy which is better than the alternative would deliver. Either way it’s ugly. That’s democracy.
@daveliberts - My idea of democracy is much different to this! I don’t call having a vote once every 3-4 yrs democracy? I call people being involved at all times. Community discussions(not like Rudd just having meetings in community halls and talking AT people) and then having a say in the final outcome. Not on everything, but on major things like this one, and health, education, defence etc? We’re not involved at all - and we’re listened to even less, unless it’s racism based - like this horror!
All Rudd had to do was make an Address to the Nation some time ago(perhaps 2?) and point out the facts of boat people v/s those by plane etc, and put paid to the coalition’s lies, and the media’s support for such racist nonsense. Get on the front foot, and tell people the truth, and then get out of Iraq(everybody?) and Afghanistan, and stop supporting thugs like govts of Sri Lanka, Burma, Israel etc. And then, telling other leaders likewise. Stand up to the empire building yanks, NATO and then…. Get the picture?
@LAWANDORER - why do you refer to the PM as ‘our little dentist look-a-like’? It’s so very childish. My dentist is a tall, elegant and pleasant woman, and she’d be aggrieved by your comment. I duly note that despite common dislike of Mr Howard, no one here has ever called him ‘the rodent’ so far as I can recall, as did one of his own parliamentary party.
If I were a die-hard Liberal supporter I wouldn’t continue to draw attention to the leadership-dramas of the Labor party. Many of us remember just how many times the Liberals did the dirty on John Howard and dumped him, unceremoniously, and with much malice aforethought. I, for instance, wouldn’t retaliate and call Tony Abbott ‘ape-man’, in deference to his simian gait, as do so many others.
Australia is, in my opinion, a distressingly racist country. However, and this is certainly not meant as a palliative, it’s the least racist country in which I’ve ever lived or visited. I’ve seen and heard things in the US, UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Thailand and Malaysia which have made my hair stand on end — — things that wouldn’t be tolerated for one short moment, even in mainstream, bloody-minded, self-righteous Australia.
Always a country of fear and trepidation and racial insecurity, Australian politicians of all parties have successfully traded on this national paranoia to varying degrees. The most egregious promoters of this unlovely national trait in recent times was the Howard government, in my opinion, which successfully demonised these poor wretches who are desperately turning to us for help, thus fostering a community reaction of intolerance and a sense of ‘invasion’ and panic. The ugly Cronulla riots were the direct result of this deliberately constructed hatred towards non-anglo/celtic Australians. This should just not be acceptable nor condoned in C21 Australia.
If the press were inclined to show and print the truth about the appalling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sympathy for all refugees and asylum seekers would swell, just as it did when Australians were fully informed of what its gallant soldier boys and girls were required to do in Vietnam and finally saw the unspeakable consequences of our military intervention on ordinary, innocent citizens of that benighted country.
The worst of the current situation is that the PM, his deputy, and so many others in the Labor government, I’m sure, know that they’re condemning these unfortunate, desperate people to even more emotional and psychological trauma, for purely political gain. I’ve never once doubted that the government would be returned at the next election, but this volte face surely confirms it.
Every cowardly ALP politician in the parliament should be ashamed of themselves, just as I’m ashamed for them.
As for voting informal over this issue - don’t ever do it! Australia is very lucky in that every voter has a better chance than almost anywhere else in the democratic world to determine government. Never, ever, vote informal. For starters, if you do, you actually support the incumbent whether you chose to or not, but importantly, you should honour and value your vote, act appropriately and make a considered decision, difficult as it may be.
@daveliberts …that is the guts of it…for too long Labor Govts have been too timid, frightened of their supporter base reaction in overall policy making to take a populist position and give themselves a decent chance of dragging in the centre and centre/left vote on populist matters. This is one of them and while it will upset many of their hard line supporters, as is evident on this blog, politically in the short term it must be done. Otherwise this Govt will be struggling to hang on to power when they shouldn’t be. Regardless of whether I or many, do not think the number of boat arrivals is excessive, the majority of Australians by far do. In this instance, and I expect to cop some flack, in this instance the Govt has taken the sensible ‘political’ stance for the next 6 months.
Abbott can moan and whinge about political expedience, he knows all about that, but in his head he knows Rudd has trumped him, at least for the time being on this one. The media, particularly News Ltd, Sky News and the ABC have shown a disgraceful disregard for professional journalism in this debate, not that ever worries them, however this blatant abuse of legitimate asylum seekers day after day, in an effort to discredit the Government, is a shameful episode. In this case I applaud the Government for declaring enough is enough.
Actually there is no debate about asylum seekers and nor should there be unless we mistreat them again.
I have asked dozens of journalists whey they intone with such frigging gravity why they report that refugees arrive.
May I swear - there is a lot of it about here-
Why dont we scare the shit out of Labor and Liberal by voting GREEN.
It might just scare them into a little morality, decency and compassion on refugees and a whole range of issues of importance to us all.
David I’m not sure this was a sensible move looking just at the political pragmatics. The issue is not going away, especially if the detention centres fill up with people who think are they are ultimately going to be deported and the Rudd Government has exposed itself as pretty obviously gutless and without any integrity (for those who thought they had any to begin with). Must be hard on Chris Evans. News Limited rags will surely not stop going after them now and they won’t let anyone forget that this is an election fix for six months. and you can just imagine the lines that ‘they will just change it all once they win office. ’ And if the boats do keep coming at the same speed it could all backfire, unless the government has some more moves ahead that we don’t know about yet.
Pamela, Labor get Green preferences in most seats anyway, that’s why Labor don’t give a shit about our votes, they have us by the short and curlies…many people who support refugees can already only stomach giving Labor their vote indirectly through the greens…
@LUIP - Except, if lots and lots of us vote for The Greens, then they’ll get up! It’s only when the number of 1st preference votes aren’t enough, that those votes go to the next person? We need more Green votes! I wonder how it would be if we had optional preferential voting in the House of Reps? If Labor preference Family First next time, they deserve what they get! Let’s hope we get rid of Fielding next time! That’s why I’d prefer a double dissolution election. Turf out the dead wood!
I have 3 other posts ‘pending’? Not strictly to the topic, but answered other posts??
Oh well! I’m interested in what the ABC 7pm news has to say?
@SHEPHERDMARILYN “I have asked dozens of journalists whey they intone with such frigging gravity why they report that refugees arrive.”
And what do they say? I’ve read other posts where you’ve stated, that you inform them of what the Law is etc, but the next day, they’re back peddling lies. No wonder you swear! I have to stop myself throwing something at the radio and TV?
In one of my other unpublished posts, I suggest that Rudd should’ve taken the initiative months ago - got on the front foot; explained the Law, the reality, the issues re these poor people etc via an Address to the Nation? Have some guts and show the media/opposition for who and what they are? Maybe do it twice! It’s a serious enough issue to warrant such action. He’s just too bloody gutless! So much for that lovely speech he made prior to the election, or was it a paper - humanity blah blah and all that stuff!
Peter Phelps:
1. Don’t get paranoid, all links take hours to be moderated.
2. Perhaps you should disclose if you are a Howard ex Govt loyalist - as per a story Crikey carried on 20 September 2007 as follows by Norman Abjorensen:
“Dr Phelps, as was revealed in question time yesterday, compared Colonel Mike Kelly, a former Australian soldier, with the guards at the Nazi Belsen death camp, over his service in Iraq. Colonel Kelly just happens to be standing against Mr Nairn in Eden-Monaro.
Dr Phelps has a long association with the far right, and the Clarke acolyte, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, paid him tribute in her first speech after being elected in 2005. He has also worked for the chilling Senator Eric Abetz, whom no one would ever call a moderate.”
Mmm. That’s pretty strong stuff open source backgrounder on one Peter Phelps - is it the same one?
Oops, just to add:
Phelps, you should reflect on this:
My view Howard and the Coalition were never concerned about border control in the national interest back in 2001 and that infamous advert a week from the election.
1. My feeling at the time was the policy was about beating up national security as a tub thump which is a defunct strategy after the Haneef farce (as defunct as Godwin Grech expose of PM Rudd is so over) because the big media and the public are much wiser.
2. What really got up Howard’s suburban solicitor nose was that “these people” were paying good money to people (“people smugglers” like Schindler?) who paid no taxes to Australia, side stepped the official costly immigration industry here (job creation scheme - not least public servants?), and worse of all, were making a serious profit while not being members of the business lobby loyal to his Liberal Party. In short free marketeers way beyond even Janet Albrechtson’s wildest Ayn Rand conceptions! Globalisation? That’s only for big corporations who donate to the Liberal Party!
Liz, they never answer. They never tell me why they won’t tell the truth about the people smuggling protocol we ratified, they won’t tell me why they never point out the refugee convention has been given force in law.
It’s just the same deluded babble day in and day out.
but even as a supporter of refugees who arrive here, if deathly Ruddock’s prediction that another 20,000 are likely to come this year eventuates, that more than wipes out the humanitarian intake from offshore this year. There are some grey areas to all this that make it complex but the discussions are always so polarised. I can’t see any justification for punishing people with indefinite detention but while plane and boat arrivals are linked to the humanitarian program others who might have come here won’t, or not for a much longer time. An argument for these two aspects of our intake to be separated again just ends up back in economics or total numbers.
@SHEPHERDMARILYN - I suppose I knew the answer before I asked the question. No wonder you get so damned angry. Perhaps we should target media offices to make our feelings known - about their revolting so-called journalism! Too bad about the facts, or compassion. We’re going to be bombarded soon with ANZAC Day, war mongering business! Yuk! My kids paternal grandfather would turn over in his grave. He was a Rat of Tobruk who lost his leg - I know what he’d think about the invasions and blood shed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My first anti-war hero - always supported my determination not to send my sons to war!
@APHRA - Couldn’t agree more! Well said! It gives me heart to know, that there are decent people, who refuse to remain quiet when this shameful behaviour takes place. I’m looking forward to David Mann and Julian Burnside QC taking action in coming days. What’s going to happen to the children? Locked up with their parents, or put in foster care or what?
I couldn’t help think of the difference to the news of that tragic plane crash, where over 90 people lost their lives, (my heart goes out to their families and friends) and the total silence by both major parties to the SIEV X tragedy, almost on our doorstep! Shameful!
Wanda the very notion that we can claim to put any cap on people asking for help is the same as shutting the hospital doors with hundreds of people sick and dying because “that is the quota for today”.
I did a search of RRT decisions last night for the first three months of this year.
Over 30 different countries involved, not one other has had country conditions suddenly applied in breach of our own law.
Protection visa
Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa.
http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm#assess_protection_claims
Remember Evans hysterical claim that people smugglers are somehow guaranteeing refugees permanent protection? Guess the DIC’s are the frigging smugglers because this is the DIC”s own information sheet for anyone seeking asylum in Australia.
Overview of the Offshore Humanitarian Program
The offshore Humanitarian Program has two categories.
• The Refugee category for people subject to persecution in their home country.
• The Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) category for people who, while not being refugees, are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to a gross violation of their human rights in their home country.
o People who wish to be considered for an SHP visa must be living outside their home country and be proposed for entry by an Australian citizen, permanent resident, eligible New Zealand citizen, or an organisation operating in Australia.
These categories go beyond our international obligations and have been introduced to enhance our assistance to those in need.
The number of applications for resettlement received is far greater than the visas available each program year. For instance, in 2007–08 more than 47 000 persons applied and around 10 800 were granted visas.
And Wanda, if those off-shore are so much more in need of our help, why don’t we accept them all instead of this cap?
What happens to the 80% we reject? Do they become Coles brand?
Who is Eligible?
A person may be eligible if:
•they are outside Australia
•they have been identified as a refugee or a person subject to persecution or substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights in their home country and deemed to be in humanitarian need.
Applicants must also satisfy the decision maker that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to the grant of a visa. This criterion is common to all permanent visa subclasses under the offshore Humanitarian Program. It involves an assessment of various factors including:
•the degree of persecution or discrimination to which the applicant is subject in their home country
•the extent of the applicant’s connection with Australia
•whether or not there is any suitable country available, other than Australia, that can provide for the applicant’s settlement and protection from discrimination
•the capacity of the Australian community to provide for the permanent settlement of persons such as the applicant in Australia.
Most humanitarian visas are granted to applicants who are outside their home country. If a person is living in their home country, it is unlikely that they will meet the criteria to be granted a refugee or humanitarian visa.
See, the major consideration is that someone else can do the job before we think about it.
@TOM MCLOUGHLIN - I agree with you re Howard’s disinterest in border security. He wasn’t interested in security, full stop! Remember the accusation against the public servant who allegedly leaked to a major newspaper the fact, that security at Sydney’s major airport(Mascot) was slack - to say the least! Howard was embarrassed, and John Anderson lost his job over it. I understand, that Howard also cut security to Port Kembla wharf, which is now the major port in NSW for car imports. I wonder what else comes in to that port? I’m not blaming the wharfies, but truck drivers who transport the cars; overseas docks where cars are loaded etc. Allan Kessing had his life ruined over the whole business!
I learned last night, that the AFP have gone to Christmas Island! What for? To beat up people who learn they have no hope of safety? We’ll be hearing about more people in future who are mental wrecks due to this!
Those already on Christmas Island are OK, it is the next poor sods they want to beat up.
Quick Quezzy.
Where is Rudd going to put all the new boatpeople he’s not processing?
Seems he’s betting on the boatpeople flood to stop. I think he’s wrong there, and they will continue to come in at large numbers.
So not only do we have the current mob in there, but we’ll have all these new people who can’t be processed as well.
Rudd’s really stuffed up on this one, and i’m in support of tougher laws.
@ APHRA, Saturday 3.14pm
In the interests of accuracy the name for the previous Prime Minister was “the lying rodent”. This term of endearment originated in Queensland (from a senior senator who was a PM supporter) & was made public prior to the 2004 election.
As for both leaders, Rudd & Abbott, being practising Christians - their attitude to refugees makes me relieved to no longer be a member of their hypocritical cults.
the truth hurts, internal policy does not change the frigging law. The law is that anyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.
As 98% of those who arrived by sea are granted status that means you want to not only break the law but punish those who use the law.
For anyone interested in the trends in illegal boatpeople arrivals check out my website: http://illegals.weebly.com/index.html
You can quite clearly see the effect that Domestic policy has on arrivals. There have been a lot of lies put out there that what affects boatpeople numbers mostly is “push factors”.
From the numbers and changes in policy, you can quite clearly see that the reverse is true… Pull factors(and the policy of the Australian government) has the biggest impact on boatpeople numbers.
What a wonderful world it would be if religion was treated as the unbelievable tripe
it is.
Most of the world’s wars would never have been started. The great four religions Islam, Catholicism, American Talibanism and Judaism should be regarded as the stuff of fairy tales.
If people were to throw their considerable energies to reducing religion to the grotesque/comic status it is; but not perceived as such by the less intelligent people in the world: one day in the future perhaps there would be no refugees.
Now that would be something worth working for.
marilyn, I agree with you and I don’t think the people we would have taken instead of those arriving on boats are necessarily more deserving. But it’s complicated and what I want and the reality we have to deal with are far apart. I think it is fair for people to debate some of these issues from different points of view but this is definitely not the place to discuss in the midst of the moronic vultures on here who are not interested in genuine debate so that’s all I will say.
Truth, only 0.0001% of the world’s refugees ever come here, that is not much of a pull factor now is it.
The reality is more mundane you moron.
We are the only nation in the area who have ratified the refugee convention, the pull is the law.
Full stop.
The push is war, famine, persecution, torture, child prostitution, child brides, NATO bombs and so on.
Now if you really think that the 99.999% of the world’s refugees are pulled to Australia when 2 million of them are Afghans in Pakistan, 1.5 million are in Iran and 2 million in Syria then you need a bex and a good lie down or a reality check.
Well thats the catch 22 isn’t it.
The only people getting here are the ones that can muster up the $20,000 or so to pay off their people smugglers.
I would much prefer an organised migration system whereby AUSTRALIA chooses who they think are most needy, not the people smugglers and criminal gangs.
What makes you think Australias refugee intake system is organised or not dictated by criminal gangs?
UNHCR offices and Australian embassys have guards on the gates to stop people getting in. The only way to enter is to PAY. Once is you will see local staff who supplement their incomes by requiring bribes in order to even lodge an application. The western senior staff either have no idea what is happening or turn a blind eye.
This is not happening in Jakarta now but it was the case in Pakistan(now closed), Iran ( cant get inthe door)India( no go here also) and African posts(still happening) .
What is the diff between this corruption and self selection?
Arguing against people becasue they have money is a lousy argument- just because people have access to funds does not make their refugee claim less legitimate.
FACT is the west is erecting walls to stop refugees getting in and propagating lies and misinformation to justify those walls.
WALLS- how many people know about the ALO’s (Airport Liason Officers)? These are DIAC staff posted across the worlds airports to vet airline passengers as they board planes. If they have a “look or smell of potential refugee’ they are shunted- no flight.
Next time you board in Dubai, Jakarta, Bangkok any number of places where people pass through to Australia- check the guy with the mobiles phones and laptop vetting the tickets of all the black, middle eastern or asian folks, furiously working the phones demanding where passports issued while people are told to stand in the naughty corner waiting to hear their fate.
There are no stats or numbers kept obviously of those who fail- whether they are refugees or just people trying to visit family in Australia or go to a conference etc.
Australian citizen passport holders who are black get the once over- how did you get an Australian passport? too.
AHH white australia still lingers …
To THETRUTHHURTS: - I am overawed by your research skills and your ability to produce lovely graphics and projections and the time and effort in establishing your very own website. Are you seeking a position in the murdocracy? You MAY have discovered a “correlation” between changes in domestic policy and an increase in the numbers of refugees arriving by boat. But what you have done is to ignore the thousand other things going on in the world that have a much greater effect on the number of people who must leave their country of birth in order to survive. What you have NOT done is prove a “cause and effect” relationship in your proposition. Just because you say it is “so” does not make it “so”. Not for one second!
TRUTH - Has it ever occurred to you, that the increase in numbers from Afghanistan is in direct correllaton to the US INCREASES IN THEIR ‘SURGE’ ACTIVITIES? It is an outrage that the Rudd govt supports these increases in violence, and then turns aqround and subjects those who flee in terror of more a buse, and blames THEM for the situation. If Afghanistan is not safe for ordinary Australians to travel there, why is it safe for Afghanis? In many situations, through ethnicity or some other reason, it would be safer for us than ‘enemies’ at home!
A few weeks ago, a certain area of civilians were advised to move out due to a planned escallation of violence, but they didn’t allow any camps or other accommodation as they didn’t want to set up ‘ghettos’? THEY being the US and NATO forces! THEY mean us too!
Some family members pool their money; insome cases they sell their homes and other valuables in order to provide a future for a young person to start again. The family at home often end up on the street or forced into communal living! Either way, poverty results!
There are more landmines in Afghanistan than in any other country in the world. We have killed and maimed people; we’ve caused birth defects and illnesses, diseases and poverty, and now we’re killing them slowly by what we’re now doing, or cause terrible mental illnesses for the future. It should be noted, that if these traumatised people do finally receive a visa from Australia, our health system will be responsible for these peoples’ mental illnesses for years, maybe for their whole lives! WE NEVER LEARN DO WE?
As SHEPHERDMARILYN and others have pointed out many times. We are going against our own Laws, and iNTERNATIONAL lAW THAT WE INSIST WE SUPPORT! It’s bullshit - we don’t!