The morality of offshore
processing
|
What exactly is the policy issue at the heart of the debate over offshore versus onshore processing? And what is its morality as public policy? Public policy has different rules than personal morality, and what’s justified morally as public policy, even outside extreme situations such as war, can be different to personal morality. Policy affects several people, and usually very large numbers of them. That brings into play competing interests which, all other things being equal, are usually resolved via a utilitarian approach that tries to maximize net community welfare. But things are rarely equal, and we tend to accept that even a net increase in welfare isn’t justified if it means an individual, or a small number of people, suffer a debilitating disadvantage. One of the ways they’re not equal, of course, is that we have a hierarchy of interests. The interests of non-citizens tend to be ranked lower than those of citizens; the interests of non-citizens outside Australia are ranked lower than those who are actually here; the interests of low-income citizens tend to be ranked lower than those on higher incomes; the interests of indigenous people, those from ethnic minorities and the disabled are ranked lower than the rest of us, young people’s are ranked below those of older people, safe seat voters’ below marginal seat voters’, and, still, the interests of women are ranked below those of men. You could pick a different hierarchy, of course, but being human, we tend to end up with hierarchies of things we either feel matter to us, or which reflect self-perpetuating institutional structures. Asylum seekers are at the bottom of most of those hierarchies, which is not to say ones that make it to Australia themselves aren’t at the top of other hierarchies outside Australia. The logic of true offshore processing (that is, processing that means asylum seekers don’t settle in Australia) tends to be obscured by the other views of those who support it. One suspects, without any hard evidence, that the reason many people support it is because, bluntly, they don’t like asylum seekers who arrive by boat and want them to go somewhere else. Boat arrivals push buttons in Australians that people arriving at airports — like “normal people” — do not. Nonetheless, regardless of the prejudices of those who support it, you know the logic of offshore processing: preventing asylum seekers from staying in Australia even after reaching here may deter people from trying to arrive by boat (or, for that matter, plane, if the same rules were applied to air arrivals). But it is boat journeys we are concerned about, because it’s an established fact that people die on boat journeys. This is where public policy morality comes in — preventing the deaths of asylum seekers should be a policy imperative, and in net welfare terms that will justify measures that make life more difficult for people who would otherwise seek to arrive by boat. How much does onshore processing address the imperative of preventing people from making boat trips? Does it play no part in increasing the risk of people coming by boat — that is, it is 100% push factors and 0% pull factors driving people into boats? Clearly push factors are the primary driver of asylum seekers. But does anything Australia does have any impact on the likelihood that people will risk boat trips? Not to address the issue is to risk substituting the welfare of asylum seekers who make it to Australia for the welfare of those who will in future perish making the attempt. Let’s go back a step: what are Australia’s obligations? Not treaty obligations, but moral obligations? Notionally it has no obligations to anyone outside its borders — just its national interests. But as a civilized nation, our policymakers have a responsibility to try to prevent deaths even of non-citizens if possible. We can’t stand by, indifferent, to people dying outside our borders, especially when they are trying to reach us, if we can in any way stop them dying, even if it inconveniences or even harms some other people. From that point of view, the Malaysian Solution is indeed, in Chris Bowen’s words, “elegant”, even if there is a risk that asylum seekers sent by Australia to Malaysia will be harshly treated. Let’s assume that the Malaysian government indeed mistreats asylum seekers, but does not execute them. At what point does the mistreatment of some asylum seekers balance the future deaths of others in the attempt to reach Australia? Where is the net welfare? This is where personal morality, and our concern for the asylum seekers whom we send to Malaysia, departs from moral policy, which aims to maximise net welfare. Asylum seekers who will later drown have no one to speak for them in this debate. Securing guarantees from Malaysia as to the treatment of asylum seekers sent to Malaysia should thus be the best way to achieve a net welfare outcome, even at the expense of the interests of those asylum seekers sent there. But as I said earlier, things are not equal. There’s an asymmetry of interests between asylum seekers and Australia. It is in our interests to prevent boat arrivals, as a civilized society, but asylum seekers feel they have little choice. Current international arrangements are almost designed to encourage them to try to reach countries like Australia. There is a huge mismatch between the needs of asylum seekers and what they’re able to access. According to the UNHCR’s most recent Projected Global Resettlement Needs report, there are 172,000 people awaiting resettlement (bearing in mind only a tiny fraction of the world’s refugees actually want to be resettled somewhere else; most want to return to their homeland) but only about 80,000 resettlement positions available this year.
As the UNHCR figures show, at the recent nadir of asylum seeker numbers in 2005, the agency almost managed to place as many asylum seekers needing resettlement as it determined needed it, but it has been overwhelmed as numbers spiked in the last three years. Thus, whatever queue there is that some people think is being jumped, is getting longer, or at least was until global asylum seeker numbers began declining again last year. The cruel maths of that chart is many years of limbo for asylum seekers. In those circumstances, the risks of a boat trip are offset by the reality of limbo and the prospect of limbo for years to come. How does that change the morality of our policy choices? The only policy that maximizes net welfare and achieves a moral balance is one that both deters boat trips and makes a significant difference to UNHCR resettlement. The Malaysian Solution gestures toward this with a small, temporary rise in our asylum seeker intake. And Australia is already the third greatest recipient of UNHCR resettlements, behind the US and Canada, out of the 24 countries that participate in resettlement processes with the UNHCR. But a truly moral policy would mean increasing our humanitarian program not by a paltry 1000 a year as the government proposes, but up to well over 20,000 a year. As a wealthy country, we can afford it. Rather like climate change, asylum seekers are a global problem that Australia can’t solve by itself, but unlike climate change, the costs of taking action are small indeed; in fact, to the extent that refugees historically have become excellent citizens, we are a net beneficiary of our humanitarian program. It also means providing significantly greater resourcing to the UNHCR, which identifies its own lack of staff and resources for delays in resettling asylum seekers around the world. Labor has significantly increased its contribution to the UNHCR since 2007, to around $45 million last year, but it’s still a small fraction of the amount we’ve spent trying to deter asylum seekers over the last decade. Further, targeting UNHCR funding within our region, in order to improve the capacity of the agency to resettle asylum seekers in the region in which they are most likely to attempt to reach Australia by boat, would lessen the impact of “push” factors driving people to risk their lives. As for policies that have been demonstrated to fail, like Temporary Protection Visas, or are unlikely to work, like Nauru, they fail any basic test of morality. They are likely to cost lives, if implemented. |
|
|
|
148 Comments
@Bernard
65% of Oz would tell you very loudly what you can do with your “morality”
The moment you use that word in the condescending manner in which you people (the Left) so often use it you cease to be taken seriously by mainstream Oz. See it doesn’t really matter what you and your Inner City fruit loops want, the fact is that average middle class Australians are sick of these rabid freeloaders jumping the queue and then biting the hand that opens the door to them.
A really good philosophical reflection on a major moral problem for Australia (rather than the reflexive and shrill social liberal or right wing commentary). Thanks.
hey captain! listen! take my son
he’s all that’s left - the only one
here’s all the money we possess
please take him and your name i’ll bless
they come on un-sea-worthy boats
with hope and little more
they come escaping what we wrought
and what we wrought was war
what makes us hate boat people
Interesting philosophical pondering Guy but needs some history I think … doesn’t everything?
The spirit of White Australia lives on - the confusion evidenced by the likes of Suzanne Blake here who is aghast at the way “refugees” have taken over Chatswood in Sydney is a good example. That these people are actually second generation Chinese migrants is of no significance. The reaction is beyond facts, beyond numbers - it taps into a deeply frightened and xenophobic culture. They are not Us. The Yellow Hordes became the Red Menace and now we are being invaded by the Swarthy Asylum Seekers.
It is self evident that there are voices in the Labor caucus who, like Howard before them, believe that we should - that we can - determine who comes and the circumstances under which they come. That border protection is an end in itself and trumps any and all of our legal and moral obligations.
This attitude can be dressed up as concern over “queue jumping” and indeed there is some weight to this view - if there was actually a queue - but as you show, the queue is frozen, the need overwhelms the supply of safe refuge.
As for “determining the circumstances under which they come” … we’ve done our bit… we’ve helped turn Iraq into a collapsed terrorist madhouse and we are about to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and a kleptocracy after all our promises. We have a moral obligation to clean up afterwards.
Wars and foreign adventures don’t just cost young lives and budget dollars - they cost this.
Sorry that was Bernard … I’m deeply sorry for any slight.
Thank you Bernard for writing the definitive article on this subject. As has been the case all along, this policy argument is about an interplay between the utilitarian ethics of public policy versus the rights of individual asylum seekers. Why has no one else in the media been able to identify this? I agree that the Malaysia solution is good, responsible public policy. The government was right in proposing it. The high court also got it right in rejecting it, because the responsibility of the court was to the individual claimants as refugees. Now it is the correct action of the government to propose changes to the migration act, as in this case, the overall utility of preventing unsafe sea journeys while increasing refugee intake trumps any individual’s claims - especially if conditions can be improved in Malaysia. Overall this appears to be the functioning of a robust democracy in action. This is not “yet another failure of an incompetent government” but could be, ultimately, an important, ethically sound success story of a system that, faced with competing demands, can sometimes get it right.
“And Australia is already the third greatest recipient of UNHCR resettlements, behind the US and Canada, out of the 24 countries that participate in resettlement processes with the UNHCR”.
I have some issues with reconciling this statement with the authors stated imperative that we should also do more.
About 12% of the world’s nations participate in the UNHCRs resettlement processes, based on the statement that 24 countries participate. Why it is imperative that Australia solve the issues that are not being addressed by the other 88%
It seems like a rerun of the climate change debate, in that it is ‘imperative’ that Australia must have a carbon pricing structure, an ETS, when other countries, much larger cannot and will not do so. People seem to think that we are showing ‘leadership’ while in fact we are burdening out economy with a cost that is not applicable to our trading partners and trading competitors, making our economy less competitive internationally.
In the case of asylum seekers, if we increase our already generous intake, particularly those who arrive by boat, we not only become more attractive to those who choose to come here by boat, increasing the ‘pull’ factor, we shoulder a burden that the other 88% of the world’s nations chose not to.
In effect we are paying a cost through our actions that they refuse to through their inaction.
I agree that we, as a nation, have been a party to some of the causes of refugee flows, Iraq and Afghanistan for example, and have some moral obligation to attempt to help right some of those wrongs. However why did it become imperative for Australia to help solve the refugee issues of Somalia or Sri Lanka, Myanmar or Bhutan? Australia was no party to the plight of those refugees; India for example played a large part in the Sri Lankan civil war over decades, should that not be an issue for India to deal with?
I understand that Australia, as a first world nation, has some capability to assist with refugee flows, and I have previously supported increased numbers of refugees being sheltered within Australia, however it would seem that this is an issue where Australia is being asked to take up a burden that others cannot or will not do so.
An equitable result would be a more widely based resettlement program, rather than assuming the goodwill of 12% of the world’s nations to deal with 100% of the UNHCR refugee resettlement program will continue.
This is all very well, but I think while we have disadvantaged Australians, we should be looking after them first. I’m not talking about the generational welfare issue and deadbeats, but people like my sister who have the care of disabled children. Her daughter has Down Syndrome, and her grandson has Asperger’s. Some of the respite facilities in her area are closing down because of lack of government funding. My sister has a full-time job and works really hard, and it is galling when she sees her other daughter (the mother of the Asperger’s child) living in a dreadful neighbourhood and facing years of being on a waiting list for better housing. She can’t get a job because her son’s condition means she can be called out to his school at any time when he has a “melt-down”. To see boat arrivals housed, fed and paid while hard-working people are struggling to survive hardens one’s heart to some extent to the plight of the boat arrivals. I don’t think it is xenophobic at all to want to look after one’s own first and foremost; in fact, I think it is a natural instinct.
The elephant in the room is the problem our descendants may have to face in 50 to 100 years time .
Already in some countries pension funds are at risk
The cost of providing the dole, pensions and all the other benefits of our society may well cause social problems in years to come, as they have in Britain.
We will have to take in family reunion members so the number of calls on taxpayer funds will grow immediately.
Incidently how can those young men prove they are refugees when they have the funds to pay the boat people. Refugees usually fly without any possessions.
im in favour of on shore processing end of story, if they make it here they should be processed here
but you miss the point about people arriving by plane and then claiming refugee status or who overstay
you can not board a plane to come to australia unless you have some sort of visa to present to immigration authorities when you board the plane to come to australia in the first place, for the majority i would imagine that they have been granted a tourist visa to visit australia and they then claim refugee status or whatever after they arrive or simply stay here illegally and mix with people from where they have come from or find jobs with people who exploit them as cheap labor
even with people who are sympathetic to refugees, and there are many, although in my view they are far outnumbered by the rednecks and racists in our community wound up by abbott, and the right wing shock jocks etc
the perception is that the people arriving by boat are queue jumpers who just lob here and demand to stay
i have mentioned it in earlier posts, could not the australian government attempt to have a dialogue with indonesia and malaysia where most of these people arrive in the first place before attempting there journey to australia to have the people screened when they arrive in those countries
surely malaysia and indonesian immigration officials realise that a great many of them are not coming to those 2 countries for a holiday ?
@Gail Lane and @Kerry Lovering, curiously enough refugees may be the solution, not the problem. When my mother was dying, it was the nurses aides ( former refugees from Africa) who provided the most loving care. They took the low paid carers’ jobs that more established residents scorned.
Most refugees who come here are young. Families in Afghanistan and other places pool their resources to get their young men out of the reach of the Taliban or others who would either kill them or turn them into soldiers. Historically (remember the years after World WarII and Vietnam?) former refugees make good hard working citizens and have added infinitely more than they ever received. Generosity is as infectious as mean spiritedness.
Guy: Where does “politicians getting re-elected” fit into the moral priority list?
@Gail Lane: Well if we just processed them in Australia and save the cost of processing them offshore the govt will have more money to spend on local disadvantaged people.
@Kerry Lovering: As guy said most refugees are good citizens and given the opportunity in Australia work hard and pay tax… helping fund the pensions (not draining it)
Surely there are more important issues for Australia than the constant talk about this non issue.
@ Peter Ormonde
Chatswood - second generation.
Incorrect, new comers have gone ahead. They are buying properties with Chinese Passports, that need translation in order to complete legal forms. One block above Chatswood Rail Station sold to 100% foreigners (245 units).
Open your eyese please
See Peter Ormonde, it’s not refugees that are the problem, it’s wealthy foreigners, who shore up our property prices, and who are uncomfortable signing legal documents in a language they don’t fully understand. Don’t you remember the Chatswood riots after the 1997 hand-over of Hong Kong?
Jesus wept.
there is no morality to off shore processing . …
Suzanne Blake, how do you know?
Oh that’s right you just make stuff up.
@ SBH,
Cause I spoke to the developer who is very happy as they all sold in one weekend.
Very cost effective sales cost.
@Suzanne Blake
I’m pretty sure that they’re not refugees, but rather belong to the other 90% of our immigration intake that we never talk about because we’re all too busy fretting about queue jumping illegal immigrants overruning the country.
Kerry Lovering, our pension problem is more likely to be helped by refugees than hurt. Australia’s population is aging and retiring and not being replaced by our birthrate. the simple solution (with emphasis on the ‘simple’) and one which is favoured by business and governments is to bring people in from overseas.
Oh, well you spoke to the developer, well case closed, I’ve never heard of a developer who was anything less than completely honest.
Once again, no evidence just lies from you Suzanne
@ SBH
They had nothing to gain. I was not buying anything, it was mentioned in passing.
“I’ve never heard of a public servant who was anything less than completely honest / efficient”
WTF are you on about? This is a countries sovereign right!
But then you do just make stuff up and repeat demonstrable untruths don’t you Suzanne?
Type TPV or Solar into the Crikey search engine for further evidence of your mendacity Suzanne.
Suzanne Blake:
Blake - that’s some sort of foreign name innit? - like English or sumfink… youse wouldn’t be one orf them 10 pound poms woudja or didja folks come over here with them convict boat people buggers? S’pose you’ve bought a house here in our country… There orta be a law.
White Australia is alive and well … it lives in the hearts of people like Blake and Troofie … fantacists… and too late, thank heavens.
Peter, if you start correcting her English we’ll be here all night.
Troofie…
It’s a “country’s sovereign right” not countries right (that’s just a plural - means more than one country).
No, we don’t actually determine the circumstances under which they come - they do, wars do, violence does…
Nor do we actually determines who comes - they do.
What Howard was trying to say is : we will determine who stays here and the circumstances under which they stay. But coming here legally, illegally or unlawfully is another question altogether. Don’t worry, it’s a subtle difference.
A really good article on this subject Bernard, and almost persuasive.
But what about sustainable population growth? In the short term economic cycles guarantee a downturn is around the corner when the current resource bubble implodes, and an inflated intake only increases economic and social pressures in those circumstances.
In the long term, Australia (like all countries) should be focusing on sustainable growth as opposed a ‘big australia’, so that we do not further destroy our natural resources and bio diversity. Australia should not lower its current morally correct asylum seeker placements, but nor should it exceed those expectations either.
Im tired of this over heated issue, but i think there needs to be a policy which actively discourages attempts at illegal entry. The best way to do that would be to either set up a better clearer process for legal applications for Australia either in source countries or in secondary countries OR continued, humane, offshore processing, ideally in a northern neighbour (or a combination of both).
1. we don’t care if they drown, and less people have drowned in the last 10 years than have been killed on SA roads this year but we don’t shut down roads and cars.
2. there is no such thing as ‘off shore’ processing, it is lying flim flam.
Each nation determines refugee claims and entitlements vary. In Australia as in every other country we are supposed to be non-disriminatory, allow access to courts, not jail people without charge or trial and not punish them.
If there was such a thing as off shore processing of asylum claims for those who are not already refugees in some other country then everyone would do it.
Why do we spend so much time babbling about things that are not real.
And Cullos, there is no such thing as fucking illegal entry. Who gives you or me the right to state that Afghans or anyone else can’t come here just because they can’t get passports.
It is nothing to do with us how they do it, who they pay or anything else.
While 100 or maybe 200 people have drowned in the last 10 years trying to get here Bernard 90 million kids under 5 have starved to death.
Perhaps to help them out we could deny them food so they starve quicker to avoid needless pain.
Strewth Cullos … there is no such thing as “sustainable population growth” … not here, not anywhere.
A sustainable population for Australia is actually relatively well known … somewhere around 220,000 spread out over the whole place. … that’s approximately how many original inhabitants lived here sustainably. Anything more than that and we start doing unsustainable things like digging things up, burning stuff and living in houses with plasmas and microwave ovens.
I’ve been looking at this notion of “sustainability” for a very long time and in my view a lot of the frothing about a “sustainable population” is actually concerned more about protecting our current living standards and turning Australia into some sort of enormous gated community. There just isn’t enough razor wire, mate.
Good to read an article that’s clearly the result of plentiful research and some deep thinking Bernard.
Such a nice change from the “horse race journalism” that’s plagued this whole vexed issue.
Your work on this issue is an island of sanity. Well done.
I agree, a really good, thougtful and considered article Bernard, thanks.
However you say up the top that “…it is 100% push factors and 0% pull factors driving people into boats? Clearly push factors are the primary driver of asylum seekers.”
But then go on to say “Current international arrangements are almost designed to encourage them to try to reach countries like Australia… The cruel maths of that chart is many years of limbo for asylum seekers. In those circumstances, the risks of a boat trip are offset by the reality of limbo and the prospect of limbo for years to come.”
And that is the conundrum that successive government have tried to address. Its not just the push factor, it is very clearly the pull factor and if we can’t turn off the pull factor then we are absolutely stuffed in aiding those being pushed.
Thanks, Bernard. Lots to think about before I could put my thoughts on paper, as it were. I liked this very much overall.
But this para particularly jumped out at me
“Securing guarantees from Malaysia as to the treatment of asylum seekers sent to Malaysia should thus be the best way to achieve a net welfare outcome, even at the expense of the interests of those asylum seekers sent there.”
The careful way that the negotiations have gone on in good faith between Malaysian and Australian officials, with both looking to the UNHCR for advice, it seems to me that the interests of all asylum seekers/refugees in our region will be better served if Julia Gillard gets her legislation through. Remember too that talks with others in the region have also been continuing on a cooperative process for some time.
Show me a country that’s keen on people from other countries crossing the border uninvited with the intention of staying. Why should Australia be any different? Both my parents were refugees which came over on a boat. Difference is they had papers verifying where they came from, why, and that they were free of disease and of good character. 99% of the current “boat people” may also be worthwhile citizens eventually but that doesn’t mean we should just accept them unquestionably. Australia needs a deterent that makes people smugglers & their customers think long & hard about taking the risk. Just the fact that they’ve paid a smuggler should not allow special rights in front of refugees who are waiting patiently in camps.
What the left want is for “People Smugglers to decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”.
I think it should be the sovereign right of Australia to decide who shall come and who shall not.
What gets me is there are ~6 Million sitting in camps and we are obsessing about this lot of economic migrants who have jumped the queue. Send em all back, there are plenty of legit ones that are much more needy, patient and above all compatible with our way of life.
Our pathetic public servants were wrong 86% of the time for Afghan refugees. How on earth is that efficient.
And why don’t any of our frigging lazy media just ask Bowen on question that would shut him up in his worthless tracks.
WHAT IF PAKISTAN DOES IT TO US
Rare for me but I agree with Suzanne Blake (!!) and find the fact that back-door immigration is probably far larger than desperate refugees, is disturbing.
Economic migrants have no problem-the ones with money, not desperados on boats- seem to have little problem merely because they have money and that is immoral.
It’s the age old thing that we Aussies believe we are blessed and just do not want to share our good fortune as though we personally created the wealth in the ground) when we have a moral and practical obligation to share what we have.
Politics has hi-jacked all sense. Abbott’s (and Howard previously) awful opportunism and Labor’s quite hopeless efforts to out-Hanson the Coalition. I wish we could go back to square one and start off all over again and talk rationally about the whole matter.
And let’s not forget-we are part of the problem that we created. We invaded 2 countries where most people flee from just as we blew up Vietnam and created ‘boat people’ there and it took 20 years for it to die down.
The fact is if all boat people were white and obese they could be diffused through Chatswood without causing Suzanne Blake to raise an eyebrow. You can be sure the ancient Brits settled down very happily with the Romans, Teutons and Vikings who arrived as boat people because the newcomers were physically not too different and there were many blondes among them. Perhaps one needs to address the deep-seated fears many Australians have that at some stage, they will wake up, the only white person in an ocean of Chinese. Hurstville in Sydney is being compared with Hong Kong, but nobody would think twice about the dominant Chinese presence if they just looked like regular Aussies. Lessons in biology and genetics rather than logic might be more apposite
Mike,
No one is saying we should take anyone unquestioningly … that’s what “processing” is supposed to do - establish identity, security and health checks etc. If all that is sorted then their refugee status is determined and they are either allowed to stay here or are moved on.
The places these guys are coming from don’t run to just “letting people go” … there is no orderly queue an, as Bernard points out in the piece above, the UN refugee program has been overwhelmed by sheer numbers and a lack of settlement places.
There are actually two sorts of “queue jumpers” - people we see on TV coming on boats without papers and people turning up at airports with all the proper paper work and visas.
It is the poor and the “identity-less” that sit in camps waiting waiting waiting… and we should take more of them - lots more. We must get that queue moving. That would be the most effective deterrent to “people smugglers”.
If you ask your parents, and they came from post war Europe as I suspect, they’ll tell you how they were processed over there and how vast numbers of people were moved relatively efficiently and quickly. We can and have done this stuff before and it did not involve having men, women and children sitting in camps for 10 - 20 years.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/687.html
And this is what the government is trying on and getting knocked down over.
Why do so many frigging migrants and children of refugees though think they have the right to persecute other refugees.
Why don’t those people piss off out of here if they don’t like the law of this country.
I repeat, there is no such legal artifice as off shore processing.
If they are processed off shore they are applying for the right to stay in another country, in this dirty deal we are trying to issue a permanent denial of entry to just 800 innocent random people for no reason at all.
Bernard, It’s a pity your thoughts couldn’t go beyond this limited area re people seeking asylum. Why not write an article on our immorality by invading countries without good reason (read illegally?) and causing people to flee in the first instance. There’s something very disturbing about apparent concern re people dying on the high seas, but not even one thought about the thousands who’ve died and will die in the future by our hands, and those of the US etc.
Too many people who contribute to this topic just block out this reality. People like myself who mention it are in a minority! Amazing!
People don’t want to leave their homeland(as a general rule)> People are fleeing Afghanistan for example, because as the Foreign Affairs Dept state, it’s extremely dangerous to be there? This is borne out by the majority of Afghanis seeking asylum being recognised as being “genuine”. Many flee because Australia upholds the puppet regime of that country, which includes members of the Taliban who we allegedly are trying to eliminate? Makes no sense to me at all! What futile and hypocritic rubbish our govt speaks?
As MARILYN points out, where’s your? concern, the Govt’s concern about the millions of kids who die from starvation before the age of 5? Or the fact that half the population of Afghanistan are children? We’re killing off the people who can care for them? Then we shed crocodile tears over the danger to unaccompanied minors who arrive by boat! They face death each day they remain at home! At our hand/s! Billions of dollars handed over to the Karzai regime are being grabbed by members of his Govt and others - including the war lords who are responsible for thousands of deaths over decades. This happens while children and women go hungry!
I would hate to think of children being sent to Malaysia where I’ve read how the parents of those already there are pestered to hand their daughters over to be sexually abused by those who are govt employees(police etc)? We hear of the sex slaves in countries such as Malaysia. We also hear of the pedophiles in Asian countries? Who’s going to ensure that these children are safe? The Minister?
There’s discussion that the ‘problem’ faced by the Minister re him being these children’s legal guardian could be overcome by making another Minister responsible for children who arrive seeking asylum? How will that person protect kids that we fly to Malaysia? Then what happens once they get off the plane? Doesn’t anybody give a damn about them?
I can not see any amendments to the Govt’s Legislation ensuring any safety for adults who arrive in Malaysia, let alone children. The situation re Malaysia’s treatment of asylum seekers hasn’t changed, as far as I can tell. I can’t see how the High Court could think this ‘new law’ would overcome that situation!
Processing people here in a humane manner, as promptly as possible is the moral thing to do. It’s cheaper and more humane to allow people to live in community housing while awaiting a decision. There was an inquiry into community living in the US some years ago. It found that people do not abscond while awaiting a decision; they have a vested interest in maintaining contact as requested by the relevant authority. Also, people with children can not ‘disappear’? There’s more opportunity for people who arrive by plane to ‘disappear’ when their visa expires. Indeed we know that they do! There could be 40-60,000 of them here illegally at this minute? No hysteria over this ‘threat’ to our borders????
There’s an argument for Australia taking responsibility for the trauma, torture and mayhem in Afghanistan. Why aren’t we showing more concern and compassion for the misery and corruption that is taking place - under our very noses? Many military people from several countries freely acknowledge the corruption, poverty, misery, death and injuries that the people are facing - and yet you never hear politicians (or media people?) even mention it as relevant to the asylum seeker issue!
The people who arrive by boat don’t wear suits and have recently held down good jobs! They’re traumatised survivors of war zones in the main! Why do we continue to remain silent about this component of this awful human problem?
I despair!
Africa has huge wealth in the ground, how are things working out for them?
Our ancestors built this place and I am thankful for the hard work they put in so that we can enjoy the life that a lot of the lefties take for granted.
It’s not about land, it’s about Christian Values, the rule of law, western democracy and anglo-saxon tradition of working together to build a prosperous nation. The Poms did it, the Yanks did it, the New Zealanders did it and we did it.
Aussies aren’t blessed, our ancestors just worked damn hard to better themselves and in return we all live happy and wealthy today because of it.
It’s an honour to come and live in this country. And it’s a privilege to be given the chance. No one has a right to just rock up uninvited.
Bernard said:
Australia, like most first world countries stands by almost always while people die outside our borders. We say its tragic but effectively we do nothing. Our MDG commitments are honoured in the breach. The difference here is that we are forced to confront the deaths on our doorstep. The state would prefer that people died out of sight because it makes us feel bad when they don’t. This is about the “ambience” our elites prefer and their ability to do the kind of cognitive dissonance that allows them to boast that “we” are compassionate and generous, rather than broader ethical issues.
Nonsense. Boats are existential. The Europeans used boats to turn this place from an Aboriginal place into a European place. Boats in this case contain people that swathes of the plebeian population fears will compete with them for the paltry benefits they get at the bottom of the system. Perhaps their fragile lives will be even more uncertain than now. Boats full not of human beings like us but “floods of refugees” can be used by the elites to stampede the plebeians behind reactionary and regressive political programs. It’s a way of getting them to vote against their interests. Concern about deaths is not a significant factor except in rightwing propaganda, as a wedge against genuinely compassionate people who do put ethics in front of their personal interest.
In any event we could add that it’s also known that people die in planes, and yet there is no “stop the planes” movement. A whole hockey team in Eastern Europe died in a plane the other day, and nobody proposed to ban planes or ban hockey. We still run tourism campaigns overseas encouraging people to get onto planes and come here. Lara Bingle tried her own pull factor pretty sharply.
We don’t stop people getting into cars either, even though that is dangerous. We allow motor racing even thought that kills people. We accept that people can make choices, including the choice to risk their lives. It’s the same with boats. People get onto unsafe boats because the alternative is worse. If they die, the unsafe boat is merely the proximate cause of the death and that cause has nothing whatever to do with us. The distal causes in order of importance are:
1. Unsatisfactory conditions of life in the source country, with consequent flight
2. Unsafe setting in places where displaced persons aggregate
3. Slow processing in the place at #2 above
If we don’t want people to “get onto boats” and drown, then we have to deal with these distal causes rather than the proximate ones. There are some pretty obvious solutions to these problems, assuming our policy makers cared. Of course, they don’t.
We also need to respect the judgement of people who get onto boats. We must assume that by and large they know their interests better than we do and are behaving rationally, and indeed, the casualty rate is, IIRC about 1%. Pushing back in an attempt to make them recalculate their calculus to accept their circumstances of life is probably not technically feasible because we can’t throw enough into the mix to change their calculus. Yet even if we could, isn’t the conclusion urged that we would be persuading them to accept asd the lesser evil a condition which they would risk their lives to avoid? Their lives and those of their children will be ruined if they accept that. How can that be ethical? The simple answer is that it can’t. We may feel better because then their misery will not be in our faces. We will have kept the mess off our front lawns, and that manicured gated Potemkin Village — Australia, will have been preserved. Ethics will not have needed to make an appearance and would be offended, if it arrived.
The reality is that we simply don’t know which people getting onto boats will die. We do know for a fact though that 100% of the people whom we successfully discourage from getting onto boats will believe that we have harmed their interests more than if we had not. They accepted the risk of death as an overhead and we were not entitled to reject it on their behalf. We do know that any we send to Malaysia or some other hell-hole will be worse off for no reason that they tried in vain to secure dignified existence. No part of that reality describes those authoring this policy as ethical. Rather, it describes them as psychopaths.
Suzanne Blake’s Uncomfortability is exactly what the government is playing on -
The people she is referring to are not refugees or back-door migrants Oscar Jones. They have paid us large sums of money in tertiary fees, paid overpriced rental for tiny inner city units, driven our taxis and served us food for years.
And if you wake up in a Hospital after and accident you are going to see a lot of brown and yellow faces because they have not only studied for years they have paid us to do it.
And yes are going to be buying up property once they get their residency here. Why shouldn’t they!
If you have a complaint go back to the Libs and Labor and the skilled migration schemes because that is where all these people are coming from. They didn’t come on boats
I’m pretty sure both parties are aware of the paranoia and hostility in the general community and are using the “boat people” as the scapegoat rather than owning up to the fact that there is racism out there.
Troofie …
“No one has a right to just rock up uninvited.” So who invited you?
Not so much the Truth Hurts more that the Myths Disgust.
Yes, I have to say I think Shepherdmarylin does point out a weakness in the ‘morality’ of dissuading people to come here in order to stop them from drowning
5th Generation Australian, but thanks for asking.
There is no morality in wealthy people whom burn their ID papers taking spots from the desperate, hungry and poor sitting in the refugee camps for 20 Years.
You guys really need to get over this self-selection thing, it’s just not acceptable.
I love you, Bernard! (Well, today anyway
). Thank you for a sane and rational response to this issue. I agree 100% with what you have said.
Now, to read a load of irrational responses to your piece.
‘No one has a right to rock up uninvited’. Really? How did the first Poms get here? Or doesn’t the absence of an indigenous invitation ca. 1788 count? If not, why not?
Cheers
FranB,
You are using a false dichotomy to justify your support for continuing to accept whomsoever may come here as an Asylum Seeker by boat.
Yes, airplanes and cars have crashes, but can you point me to the evidence that supports the assertion which can be drawn from your loquacious defence of your point of view, that Asylum Seekers have died when trying to come here by airplane? And, as they can’t come here by car that is just a red herring.
Bernard is entirely justified to put the morals and ethics of allowing an ‘0.5% Drown Rate’, as Marilyn Shepherd and other boat-borne Refugee Advocates call it, in the balance with our government’s attempt to find a way to untie the Gordian Knot of Asylum Seeker policy in this country.
Just a couple of points about this issue that have caused me to pause and reconsider it are, firstly, that the People Movers’ business in Indonesia has seen Asylum Seeking by boat to Australia reach the level of high farce akin to these people, genuine refugees or no, lining up in Indonesia and paying for a Contiki Tour to Australia. Also, there are those races of genuine refugees, in countries like Malaysia, such as the Chin whom we are helping to resettle here now, who are culturally averse to travelling in boats. Why should we negatively discriminate against them, and in favour of the mostly Afghan, Sri Lankan and Iranian Asylum Seekers, who seem to have a well-oiled network operating now which sees them take up the majority of the places in the People Smugglers’ boats?
You said: ‘They accepted the risk of death as an overhead and we were not entitled to reject it on their behalf.’ Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t dismiss anyone’s death at sea as casually as you seem prepared to do, as an ‘overhead’ to be factored into the equation which sees them maybe, or maybe not, get to Australia. On the other hand, I imagine you are vociferously, and hypocritically, against the Death Penalty. It’s called Moral Equivalence, and your response is full of it.
Also, you can get off your high horse about Malaysia. Have you even thought that the government’s deal with that country is an attempt by them to improve Malaysia’s behaviour towards refugees, not condone it? Nah, you’re too conservative and blinkered in your views to see the potentialities of this deal. Sad, really, for one seemingly intelligent in other respects.
Patricia, can you tell me one good reason you think Australia has any right to dictate terms to countries that have not signed the refugee convention and why it is you think we should be paying for the rights of refugees in our region who have zero claims on us?
It will cost billions you stupid woman.
Great Article Bernard which has, for me, dispelled some of the fuzzy logic which surrounds the unfolding of this great Tragedy of the 21st. Century.
However, the Contibutor who has knocked the socks off everyone in this Forum has to be Fran Barlow. You nailed it Fran.
Remembering the tumultuous days of the Vietnamese exodus in 1975, there were many opinions and arguments raised then which echo today. The upshot, of course, is that fears expressed then did not
come to fruition. Rather, our society has massively benefited from the contribution made by those heroic people from another time.
Jeez there’s some crap on here:
Mary Rose Liverani wrote
“You can be sure the ancient Brits settled down very happily with the Romans, Teutons and Vikings who arrived as boat people because the newcomers were physically not too different and there were many blondes among them”.
No we fought them for many hundreds of years, and in fact we are still ‘fighting’ them for autonomy and respect”
TheTruthHurts wrote that it is all about people “anglo-saxon” virtues. Now the 40% of the population that are of Celtic background are rejected, along with all ‘lefties’, hippies, and so on ad nauseum.
You are a nice piece of work!
Bestiality does not recognise laws or morals.
38, mainly Vietnamese, children are still in Baxter Centre. Incommunicado.
There is no excuse for abuse of somebody else’s children.
And, unfortunately there is NO RSPCA for kids.
The whole cruelty excercised by both major parties is intentional. Playing on people’s sentiments both major parties have been entertaining the public with something that should be a non- issue.
But this stupid debacle takes up most of the parliament’s time so we do not have a chance to listen what our government is going to do with issues of importance: rising taxes, bills and unemployment rate.
As if we had no other issues to discuss- like drug smuggling, banking scandals and politicians’ behavioural patterns or……
independent judiciary.
And now, our sweet Julliet wants to change the law because she does not like it. Perhaps she would like to get rid of High Court?. Why not?
THETRUTHHURTS
So does the THINKING, does it not?
Which part of ‘The Australian Law’ you do not understand??????
Sure an’ didn’t we have our own problems wi’ morality and public policy issues a few years back when some strangers arrived here by boat on Mutton Bird Island. Some wanted to offer ‘em solace in Christian ways, others wanted to offer ‘em comfort in the ways o’ the Buggerin’ Brothers, others still filled fourty four gallon drums with mixed herbs and spoices as in th’ole days. But sanity prevailed when the reffos all failed the written “God’s English” test and we were able legally to send ‘em all to reside on Sodom Rock where their degenerate penguin eatin’ existence stands as a stern warnin’ to other illegals troyin to get their hands on our wumman. As the famous poet wrote “Mutton Bird Island is a lucky country run by second raters who share her luck” and we’re damn proud o’ it too.
Ah but Rena, Bowen wants a legacy for his kids to remember him by. He will now have a legacy of being more brutal and ignorant than Ruddock.
Wonder how his kids will like that.
Marilyn,
Speaking of Phil Ruddock … what on earth is a Labor Government doing feeding this Metcalfe bloke (the head of DIAC who apparently didn’t say all those things that were taken down by journalists the other day). He was Ruddock’s Chief of Staff for 1996-97 - a political job that really should put him well outside the pale for heading a Department of such sensitivity and one in which the change of policy was supposed to be sweeping.
No wonder Julia Gillard is mouthing the same stupid concerns about “protecting our immigration system” and destroying the people smugglers’ business model… she’s got the same scriptwriter.
I am starting to suspect Labor was never serious about changing the Howard policies.
Wonderful, Bernard! Thank the gods someone has the intestinal fortitude to look at the moral side of this equation. See Marilyn, not everything is just about the law. In fact, the law has nothing at all to do with morality or ethics, and the refugee question has many different facets - all of which must be considered here. I have been trying (however inadequately) to put this perspective over the last several months.
Incidentally, I think your “100 - 200” drownings is way out of whack. I think it was the Fairfax press in the last few days which told the story that most of the boats that sink, are not even recorded. I would guess that no one knows the true story, but they suggested that it was at least many hundreds, and possibly thousands.
@ C@TMOMMA - Thank you for your last post - I too agree that there is much to recommend the Malaysian policy, and I disagree with FranB. It is a strange kind of morality displayed by these refugee advocates who think anyone arriving by boat is worthy of everything that Oz has to offer, but those waiting patiently in these refugee camps in Malaysia and elsewhere deserve nothing - just because that is what “the law” says. I would suggest that that attitude is morally bankrupt. And Rena Z, you are just as guilty, because you look at this whole issue through one “lens” when there are many.
I just hope Tony Abbott comes to his senses and allows the government to get on with the Malaysian policy, because, rightly or wrongly, I believe there is more to this response than the government is telling us. I also think that the democratically elected government of this country has every right to make decisions about this and other matters while it remains in power.
What is the morality of this often heard statement.
“we don’t want people to get onto boats and drown”
Consider the lose of the SIEV-X with the loss of life of a couple of hundred would be refugees.
Compare to it the recent lose of life of would be refugees of the WA coast.
The difference – one we saw on our TV screens, the other was some vague investigation lost in the choppy waters of the Senate.
Morality! Is it that we do not want refugees downing, or is it that we do not want to see refugees drowning?
Or not a moral issue! Is it just a cover story to hide our racism and xenophobia from ourselves and from others by wrapping it in fake tears?
Lovely writing Fran. Partly makes Bernard’s point of course - the disjunction between personal and policy ethics. But I come down on your side.
Indeed most of the rational and ethical arguments are irrelevant to the racists and xenophobes (covert and overt) targeted by both sides of our sorry excuse for a parliament.
The morality in asylum seeker policy reflects the morality of scoundrels and scalawags, and this is not confined to the usual suspects, our pollies. Included are radio shock jocks and Immigration bureaucrats, plying about the hitherto unutterable nonsense that should off shore processing be abandoned there will be London style riots.
Never in my life have I seen such outrageous and indefensible policy. Asylum seekers are among the most desperate of the world’s peoples. What does Australia offer? Years behind razor wire in some steamy tropical Hell hole, so the comfortably off pollies and pen pushers can garner the tattoo belt vote. In addition to displaying Third Reich ethics, its expensive and will get more expensive as the damage claims for psychological trauma proceed through the court system.
<emc@tmomma said:
You start alleging a red herring and then utter one. My point is that risk attaches to all human activity. Life entails the risk of death or injury. So too does air and car travel. All human activity is trading in prospective benefit and prospective cost. Few of us believe the benefits of living with near zero risk are worth it. Most of us would risk propsective death to escape interminable misery, injury and very probable death. The calculus is simple enough. One asks which costs are higher. That people persistently get onto unsafe boats and give up considerable sums to do it gives us a clear answer.
You are clearly full of something but whatever it is, it has done your capacity to argue no good.
I am against the death penalty, but that is not at issue here. People are consenting to get onto unsafe boats. That is their right. I dare not say that their calculus is wrong. I wish the circumstances that prompted their flight did not obtain and I’d favour steps to mitigate their misery and fear. Yet the first principle, if one cannot help another, is not to harm them, and still less to harm them while disingenuously avowing that the harm is really in their best interest merely to serve one’s own angst.
Gillards been caught telling Fibbies again:
theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/tony-abbott-stalls-on-bid-to-legalise-malaysia-refugee-deal/story-fn9hm1gu-1226136003938
So to get to the 95% number all she had to do was pretend that the 30% that were sent home didn’t exist and that New Zealand is a state of Australia.
The number was 43% Dillard, why can’t you just tell the truth for once?
FranB,
Well, don’t we get down in the gutter when challenged?
So, because ‘risk attaches to all human activity’, that makes it OK for Asylum Seekers to drown at sea? Hmm. Interesting way your heart bleeds for these Asylum Seekers. I could almost say, why is it OK with you that some hundreds of men, women and children drown at sea on their way here? Because their lives are of lesser value than yours? But if they manage to make it here, then suddenly they are to be fussed and bothered over, by the likes of you and your kind, and the conditions under which they are detained for checks agonised over. Like I said, your irrationality and Moral Equivalency, in order to justify your personal perspective, which I can hardly see as right in any way, amazes me.
Shepherd Marilyn@5.44 pm. You can tell when people think they are losing an argument. They become personally abusive of those who have a different view. I’ve often admired your passion in arguing the cause of refugees, Marilyn, but your effectiveness as an advocate is frequently marred by your intemperate comments.
I know little about the costing of the various options but I understand that Andrew Metcalfe and his department are across all that and they recommend the Malaysian solution as the least costly and the most effective of all options. But as Bernard has pointed out we are the wealthiest country in the region, well able to take in many more refugees and presumably to contribute our fair share of whatever it costs to advance the welfare of these desperate people. Besides which there will be the added bonus of fewer costly detention centres here, and hopefully a decrease in the number of the expensive and time consuming legal challenges by refugee advocates.
I admire your energy and persistence Bernard, but as much as I would like it to be otherwise you will not save Gillard and perhaps not Labor. Your sermon or lecture turns or is it spins on the need, yea the moral imperative, to keep people off unsafe boats.
This is a relatively new line to emerge from the concerned bowls of government. It is confected concern and compassion. No matter what is put in place by this government or any other, boats will continue to come, thats what desperate people do.
Bruce Haigh
c@tmomma said:
No. That simply means risk trading is inevitable in life. Don’t verbal me to make a point. The reality is that the world is full of risk. Rational and informed people try and maximise the balance between risk and reward. Sometimes ones options are poor. Those of us who care should seek to ensure that most people’s options are good. You seem to be opting for making a poor option worse than the one many asylum seekers reject. No amount of verballing or playing with words can change the reality that the policy you propose entails forcing misery upon people in order to make you feel better about defending ALP policy on this.
Nice to see on your penultimate post we got to see the basis for your hatred of ‘Boaties Truthie. I am curious though why your christian values don’t apply to ‘Boaties’ especially that one expressed in John 13:34,35.
No speaking of being caught telling ‘fibbies’ (geez are you five years old) how about that one you told about the 200 extra public servants in PM&C? At least when presented with contrary evidence Gillard retracted which is more than you seem able to do.
And have you managed to get a grown up to explain to you why Justice Gummow doesn’t believe ‘unlawful’ is illegal?
PS Like the rest of Australia’s largest ethnic group, I’m anglo celtic. You should go easier on minorities seein as you is one
The fact is that over 900 refugees were released from detention from 20 May to 11 July, 515 of them Afghans, 166 Iranians, 164 Iraqis, 64 Tamils, 57 Burmese and others.
And finally the bullshit people smuggling is being questioned - how in god’s name we decided alone in this country that getting refugees away from torture, genocide and persecution was a hideous crime is beyond my comprehension.
we are the only country that automatically jails the ferrymen and continues to do dirty deals with the criminals and torturers.
The Elders o’ Mutton Bird Island directed me to undertake a fact foindin’ mission inta this terrible takeover of Australia by foreigners so oi spent yesterday off tha Island - in Bankstown. Worried about the potential for violent cultural conflict I wore two pairs o’ underpants and gave The Truncheon a good oilin’. Moi guide to Bankstown, a First Australian as he calls hisself, took me roight inta tha heart o’ darkness. Oi observed a licorice all sorts population, well dressed to a man and woman, goin’ shoppin’; oi saw young men o’ middle eastern appearance in school uniforms goin’ to and from school; I witnessed young men o’ various ethnic backgrounds flirtin’ and talkin wi young women o’ clearly different ethnic backgrounds. Oi had a yum cha o’ such quality as would make the boyz o’ the HSU weep in regret for their inability to get outta China Town. There was a public transport nexus o’ rail and bus that they was using with facility. Altogether the experience has changed moi mind about foreigners. Tha clincher was that, search as I did with an acute eye, I could foind not one, not one mind you, terrible plastic ridden fake Oirish Pub. There were ‘skips’, as us desert Oirish are fondly known, distinguished from tha general population by their rubber thong footwear wi’ flowers and decorations on them and they looked well integrated. Mutton Bird Island will be havin’ some o’ this, oi tell ya.
continually reading posts by people like Thetruthhurts just reinforces in my mind how in australia there are so many people who are simple not decent human beings
sure you can not expect people to always agree on everything issue that is controversial
but there is a hard redneck right in this country that has highjacked the political agenda with there im always right born to rule mentality
your one of the Thetruthhurts and people like you make me feel physically sick
Morning constable…
As a concerned father of new fewer than six (possibly more) blonde blue-eyed little Orstayan kiddies - I am shocked and appalled that you would venture into the dark thicket of Sydney’s western suburbs and actually have a look at this sordid racial and cultural miscegenation that continues apace in our delightful suburbs. What’s wrong with just getting the idea from A Current Affair or Today Tonight like everyone else?
Everywhere our Christian Values are under attack - I’ll lay odds that you didn’t spot a single choir boy being fondled by a man of the cloth or a drunken father wailing into the kids with a strap.
And as for viewing with approval the despoilation of our young women by men with foreign parts, their use of our grand public schools and buses for their nefarious purposes I am at a loss for words. Can’t you see what they are doing with this pretence of normalcy and studious application?
They come here, make full use of the facilities, work hard, buy houses and flats and fill them up with stuff from Harvey Norman and lead useful productive lives. It’s a disgrace!
But you give yourself away with the mention of Chinese snacks… that’s how they do it of course - insinuating themselves into our way of life with little buns and tasty morsels. I well recall how in the 1950’s Nick the Greek tried this caper at Woolibuddha with his souvlakis and baklava until we concerned citizens of the bowling club ran him out of town on a rail. I myself refuse to eat anything that doesn’t involve some good Ozzie chops and a mass of mash.
No no no - when it comes to tucker I’m firmly on-side with Suzanne Blake and Troofie … I’m all for banning rice and making the possession of a wok a suitable ground for deportation. It’s the thin end of the wedge!
We must hold back the tides of swarthy hordes and protect our Oztrayan way of Life. Like God intended.
Yez are roight, Peter Ormonde, it was the sheer humanity of that yum cha that has turned moi head an’ heart on this matter. I’m flummoxed meself at me response. What a sensory Disney land o’ impressions remains wiv me today - tha’ soight o’ a young woman in hijab and sunnies flooring a WRX up tha’ main street wiv all the aplomb of of a Trevor in a GTHO left me wiv a feelin’ o’ deep, joyous connection wiv her. The sheer joy o’ flattenin’ tha’ pedal on a sunny Ozzie day and watchin’ tha’ pedestrians scatter loik chooks. That, and tha’ excellent, mind numbing consequences o’ a local strain o’ the herb known colloqially as Banksie Banshee left me thinkin’ this was people after me own heart. Youse’ll have ta get outta that whitefella ghetto in Wollibuddha more often.
freaks me out
i ask people now on a daily basis - what do they think of boat people
bummer man, i really am glad i’m not on the receiving end of all the hatred here
and it’s not just the white aussies and poms etc - it’s the asians too - and lebs, greeks, italians
it’s well, it’s pretty much, everyone!
hates boat people
that’s, like, amazing
i feel suddenly like i am an alien - like i’m not of this planet, walking around looking like everyone else but i’m not
i think there is no hope for the human race - with so much hatred in us how can it ever turn out except in global war and subsequent isolation
i think i’ll go and live with someone less racist - like the mexicans or the south central blacks or the taliban - anywhere must be less racist and hateful than here
pop
@Policeman MacCruiskeen
How do I get to Mutton Bird Island? Sounds like a great place & I reckon the locals would be friendly enough. I’ve got a leaky boat so is it too far to row - or should I find a willing mariner?
Putting practicality aside we know the answer to the moral question. It is why Tony Abbott still says he abides by the Refugee Convention and Human Rights.
Being practical in how to deal with Asylum Seekers is the issue. Practically the best and only real solution is in not where Asylum seekers are processed it is the amount of time it takes to do so. The longer it takes the more unworkable the process becomes. No matter where you do it.
A quick word also on the reality of “Stop the Boats”.
There is only one practical way to achieve this. Rescind the Refugee Convention and put up the razor wire.
Otherwise boats will continue to arrive no matter how tough we seem. The Convention requires all genuine refugees be accepted and that the others can be deported. That is the pull factor that neither side of politics will address.
Want to eliminate the pull factor eliminate Australia accepting refugees.
MikeB: Mutton Bird Island is a real place and a state o’ mind. You’ll need a leaky boat and a willingness to celebrate the accomplishments of Great Oirish Australians loik Mickie O’Loughlin ta get here.
I think Australia is wrongly labelled by some as a “racist” country. Sure there are racists but by far the majority want to live their own lives without interfering with other people, and expect others to do the same. Institutionalised racism as exists in India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc just does not exist here. As an aside we befriended a refugee from Sierra Leone a few years ago. She was not a boat person but had come through official channels after her husband had been murdered for political reasons. Oddly enough she hated Sudanese because she said they were “so black”. Pot & kettle I thought at the time - but said nothing.
Guytaur…
Troofie put it quite succinctly a few days ago … to stop the boats we have to make Australia a less attractive place to be. He’s doing his best.
You are confusing me with someone else.
I did hear there were an extra 10,000 public servants in Canberra since Labor started which doesn’t surprise me.
What persecution and torture are they facing in Indonesia Marilyn?
These blokes are economic queue jumpers. There are real refugee’s out there needing help from Australia, you should check out the camps some time.
Hey folks ….
here’s Troofie posturing about like he wants to see more refugees - the “deserving ones” coming in … but he’s already nailed his colours to the wall with his little rant from the heart yesterday:
“It’s not about land, it’s about Christian Values, the rule of law, western democracy and anglo-saxon tradition of working together to build a prosperous nation.”
So what we should only be taking refugees who are white christians? Bit thin on the ground that lot. These racist back-biters are all over the place on these issues.
5th generation Australian? The bloke doesn’t even make it to being 1st generation in my book. Actually I don’t believe him at all.
Guytaur said:
Oh not at all. You could always just send armed cruiser out there, blow them out of the water recording the results and put it up on the DFAT website and youtube.
Sure it sounds harsh, but it’s the only way they’ll ever learn … As the song goes ya gotta be cruel to be kind. Aw stuff it… you just gotta be cruel because that’s its own reward.
The only thing is that all those namby pamby bleeeding heart lefties would be up in arms with their sob stories. It’s political correctness gone mad I tells ya …
Mind you, if you really want to stop the refugees you have to make sure that nobody flies into this country who isn’t a citizen. From now on, no tourists or overseas students or skilled or business migration … these are the major sources of refugees and asylum seekers.
Let’s pull up the drawbridge. All we need is a suitable slogan. Stop the planes is appealing. Then again, what about: Stop the world I want to get off! ?
Tony Abbott needs to stop pussyfooting around the real problem and put this to the revolting people!
Now you’re talking Fran… enough of this pussy-footing about …. more razor wire, turn the guns on ‘em… no more half-measures.
We’ll build a lovely gated community like they have in South Africa or the US where only “naice” people like us are allowed in and then only for a visit. And we can lounge on the sofa sipping pina coladas while the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket.
Abbott is so gutless when it comes to really putting the boot into these kiddies isn’t he? When will we get the sort of leadership we really deserve?
I used to agree with the writer to a certain extent but no longer. The boat arrivals are part of what is a criminal endeavor where those who have money can pay someone to deliver them to Australia illegally.
Westral
If they are illegal they get deported. Seeking Asylum is entirely legal.
To sto that you have to rescind the refugee convention.
See above posts.
@GUYTAUR - Then you’ll inform the UN that we’re tearing up the UN Declaration of Human Rights; The Declaration on the Rights of the Child and any other International Law or declaration we’re signatories too, including those that directly relate to our RESPONSIBILITIES re the protection of persecuted and terrorised people! Perhaps the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Declaration Australian signed up to a year or so ago.
Then, you’ll call a Media Conference and announce your actions. Then, when you’re(or the govt?) are taken to the International Criminal Court or the High Court or?? you’ll fund the legal team - for both sides?
Good! Glad we got that sorted!
PS- I heard Sally Sara on AM this morning state, that this year has been the bloodiest year to date for the civilians of Afghanistan? Perhaps folks, this could just explain the increase in Afghanis coming here? A real ‘push’ factor I’d suggest!
Utter rot.
The major sources of refugee’s used to be the refugee camps.
The great thing about people who fly into Australia though is that they have passports, so we can identify who they are and if they aren’t meant to be here send them home on the next flight out.
We can’t do this with boatpeople because they burn their ID papers on purpose to make it near on impossible to identify them, verify their story or return them to their country of origin(lots of Pakistani’s are on the boats pretending to be Afghani, but how can the Aussie authorities prove it?)
No no no Liz, they are being lured here by the prospect of our job-destroying Carbon Tax, by our having the “most incompetent government in human history”, by our selfish new mining tax, by our collapsing retail sector, by our flagrant government waste, by our delightful resort-style detention centres and the pandemonium and crisis that afflicts every aspect of our daily life under the “illegitimate Gillard-Brown regime”.
I reckon the quickest way to stop the boats would be making Tony Abbott an ambassador at large.
I’ve even heard rumours that a flotilla of tinnies is being prepared to take some recent arrivals back to Afghanistan, so disillusioned have they become with their new home under this inept mob of hooligans. I might join them if things get any worse.
It’s a loophole in our immigration system and the illegals and people smugglers are abusing it.
You know it. I know it.
Time to shut down this dirty dirty business and give all the spots to real refugees sitting in real refugee camps.
i wonder how many of us, if we were in a country torn by the wars we are part of
and life was absolute hell
and we had just a little money left
might consider the boat option
i wonder also this
are those who support “collateral damage” as an acceptable consequence of the “war on terror” the very same people who hate boat-people?
like are we dealing with one and the same set of people? Ie people who do not value the lives of their fellow human being at all?
has everyone seen this?
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
pop
The problem is they are queue jumpers.
It’s not racist to hate queue jumpers. We hate em down at the post office. We hate em down at the bank. And we hate them at our borders.
The left tries to play the race card because they’ve got no excuses left on why these people should be able to steal spots from real refugees… so out comes the “your all racist” mantra.
Polls consistently show that Australians fully support our refugee intake program… the proper one where you come through the front door and are invited. It also shows consistently we are dead against illegal boat arrivals.
So it appears we are racist against boatpeople and queue jumpers but not those brown refugee’s the left tells us we hate.
There is nothing racist about being against queue jumping.
As a human being with human failings, I find it hard not to be biased in saying that finally someone has written something sensical on this topic, good job Bernard. The bias being that I agree that the Malaysia proposal was actually a pragmatic solution that maximised net benefit to society and that we should be taking in more like 20,000 than 4,000. As has been discussed elsewhere, the Malaysia deal was starting to work towards something like a regional processing system that would hopefully limit people risking their life undertaking a boat journey and would provide a pathway for people to get out of Malaysia.
I’ve said it before but people just don’t seem to listen. There is plenty of racism and xenophobia out there. But there really is a perception that people with means are getting around the system. There is a reason why the refuges arrving in Australia are mostly from Iraq, Afghanisatan and Sr Lanka. And its not just because there have been wars there. It is because compared to millions dieing in camps in Africa, they actually are well off. Not compared to any reasonable standard, but because they have the means to pay for even one individual to travel by boat. The somalians don’t.
So this is at least the perception that the goverment has to deal with. They have to be seen to be giving those who can’t afford a boat trip ‘a fair go’. Isn’t that the Australian way?
The Malaysia deal with a much higher intake (and perhaps a commensurate reduction in skilled migration) works on many fronts.
Unlike the bleeding, I also acknowledge that whilst Australians with our wealth have an obligation to help others, some people don’t want t deal with large changes in culture.
Now unlike some above who may have only visited the western suburbs of Sydney, I actually live there. I can see how an older person who lived their life in Liverpool might not like the cultural changes that have taken place there (38% of all residents born overseas with almost none of them being from the UK) and I don’t think its up to those above to tell them they should just accept it. Its never going to happen. Having 38% of your residents being born overseas dramatically changes some aspects of life. I can understand why some people don’t support migration. You just have to accept that. There are humanitarian options that don’t involve people migrating. Many people would support these over migration. You have to come up with some kind of middle ground solution. That is the only plausible way forward.
Anyway I see nobody seems to listen to the other side of the argument so I’ll stop wasting my fingers typing!
Troofie, you’re such a honky, boyo. When you say “sitting in real refugee camps” you mean acting like supplicants begging for the largesse of your shrivelled honky heart. You want grateful mendicants not people who come to our shores with a sense of entitlement. Not that the entitlement is much, merely that accorded under convention to refugees. But even that sense of entitlement disqualifies them in your view. You want grovelling gratitude rather than a capacity to exercise agency where it is possible by buying their way here on boats. Pathetic. I cannot think of a country repugnant enough for me to recommend it to you as a future home for you. Certainly, never come back to Mutton Bird Island. We’re a civilised place compared to wherever your dank and sour shadow falls.
@ Peter Ormonde
“Liz, they are being lured here by the prospect of our job-destroying Carbon Tax, by our having the “most incompetent government in human history”, by our selfish new mining tax, by our collapsing retail sector, by our flagrant government waste, by our delightful resort-style detention centres and the pandemonium and crisis that afflicts every aspect of our daily life under the “illegitimate Gillard-Brown regime”.
You have finally awoken and taken off blinkers and ear muffs. Well done.
Sooz…
And yet - with things as bad as they can possibly be - these people risk life and limb and spend a heap of money getting here. Why?
How did you cook the cockatiel egg?
suzanne blake, rhymes with snake
you sound like another horrible indivual of which there are far to many of in our country
Cairns…
There’s not that many horrible people really … most of the people I encounter who have bad attitudes to boat arrivals aren’t actually racists… they are frightened, they watch commercial current affairs shows and they don’t know the facts, they are afraid of things being different and strange. Once they get to meet a few refugees, get a few facts under the belt and get the hang of things, they generally come around. Most people still believe in giving people a fair go.
Suzanne Blake and Troofie are a very different kettle of fish … nothing will change their attitudes and they are actually deeply racist and very very silly. Don’t take her too seriously - no one else does.
Truth I’m not getting you confused with anyone, you repeated Suzanne’s lie about 200 PM&C staff
TheTruthHurts
Posted Wednesday, 7 September 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
“Maybe the moderator has been outsourced to one of the 200 new fat cats in the Prime Minister & Cabinet Department?
You know the Department now with 980 people that delivers no services, just spin for our dear leader, Julia Gillard.”
Perfect opportunity today for Dillard to talk to Nauru President about reopening Nauru. What does she do instead?
You then added to it that the APS has grown by 10,000 without noting that it is about the same size it was twenty years ago and yet servicing a much larger population.
Anyway why don’t you extend the compassion your god exhorts you to towards desperate people fleeing war?
Hmm I have two posts awaiting moderation on seperate topics. Perhaps if you write more than 50 words you get chopped?
@ Peter Ormonde & Cairns50
I don’t hate refugees. I hate the people who come unauthorised. They may or may not be leaving a war zone, but when they cast off from Indonesia, they are not in a war zone. They are economic refugees in the main, coming here for a windfall in life.
They have heard we are soft and we have politicians like Sarah Hanson Young with open arms. Not many make their way down to where Sarah lives though.
I would be happy to process them onshore in special facilities in the Far North, manned by Australians. The reason for Far North, is that we cannot have them coming to places where conditions are better than what they have now, or we create a magnet. Further, its closer to get them back to re-settlement areas. People who wilfully over stay visa’s should go there as well if they are not deported immediately.
@MIKEB said “I think Australia is wrongly labelled by some as a “racist” country”
That’s not true, we have plenty of rabid racists in Oz.
They ALL come from the Left of politics and they hate ALL Anglo Ozzies as well as themselves.
you ‘hate’ them Suzanne? Why, do they threaten you, your family and friends or your way of life? What happens to them in Indonesia which is not a signatory to the convention.
If they were economic refugees why come by boat of all things? Why not just use your vast riches to purchase a plane ticket and fly to Sydney? Maybe their choices are more limited than you believe.
And really, they’ve heard very little about us, they just want to get away from the wars we started.
@ SBH
They don’t come by plane, cause they don’t have an Australian Visa in their passports….surely you knew this?
When you apply for a visa, you have to demonstrate you have means and return ticket etc.
They have heard a lot about us. I don’t recall Australia starting any war? We went into Singapore, PNG, Japan, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere after conflicts had started.
@ SHEPHERDMARILYN Posted Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 3:41 pm
“And Cullos, there is no such thing as fucking illegal entry. Who gives you or me the right to state that Afghans or anyone else can’t come here just because they can’t get passports.”
Seriously? Firstly calm down.
Dont know how much you know about sovereignty and borders, but trying to avoid ordinary border checks to enter ANY country is ILLEGAL. Our government (like all governments) have the right to manage who comes to Australia. You try avoiding customs getting into any country without a passport and see how far you get. Been like that for a couple hundred years now.
I would rather spend money on making it easier for Afghans to apply for asylum from there own country OR from 3rd countries than have them coming here dangerously by boat, and pushing out several hundred (or thousand) poorer Burmese refugees who have been waiting patiently in Thailand or Malaysia, and dont have the finance to pay a people mover to get here quicker.
Lose the hysteria Shepherd, its no more attractive than the hysterical right.
Crikey subscribers are invited to join:
http://www.teaparty.org/view_email.php?id=1290
No I QUOTED her. Big difference.
Much like i’m quoting you now doesn’t mean I believe your twaddle.
How do you reckon they are getting from Pakistan to Indonesia? Are they jumping on a rowboat and rowing their way from the other side of the world? No, they jump on a plane in Islamabad passport in hand, fly over for a stop over in Malaysia…. jump on a connecting flight with their passport again for a flight into Jakarta.
Then when they get to the dock to board their leaky boat, all of a sudden their passports just “disappear”. Isn’t that amazing?
There are 3 main reasons why boatpeople ditch their passports before boarding the boat:
1. Makes it impossible to identify the individual, therefore they can give themselves a fake name so customs can’t do criminal/terrorist/Pakistani Citizen checks.
2. Without a name, customs can’t DISprove their claims to torture and threat against their life. Therefore Australia in almost all cases has to approve the claims because there is no evidence the claims aren’t true.
3. And most importantly it makes it nigh impossible to repatriate people from whence they came. Pretty hard to call up Pakistan and tell them you got a bloke here whose name is not on any Pakistani register and whom claims to be from Afghanistan needs to be returned.
It’s why 98% of asylum applications by boat are now allowed into the country. We also have suspected terrorists like this bloke who we had to let out into the community because Rudd was dumb enough to promise insta-visas to all those on the Oceanic Viking and now we have to pay for ASIO security to keep track of them 24/7:
www .dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/million-dollar-asylum-baby-is-secure/story-e6freuzr-1226121589507
Only under Labor….
See, the problem is you’re just happy to quote crap without checking.
But let’s continue. If they fly straight to Australia they are entitled to have their applications processed here, but these cunning buggers fly to Indonesia first then throw away all their stuff and get in a boat.
I also understand that the Afghan Government, which has won international prizes for the speed and efficiency with which its organs operate, has ensured that 100% of citizens fleeing war and internal terror are issued with valid passports before the leave. Even the residents of South Facknowswhereabad in the darkest reaches of Orūzgān have been serviced.*
Still, if you were some poor farmer living in the north of Sri Lanka without ready access to a passport airline office and watching the always bloddy civil war get worse and move ever closer to your family, how would you leave the country?
And why don’t you extend your christian values to these people again? Because some people are less worthy of the love of christ?
*this doesn’t actually happen, I was being sarcastic
->theTruthHurts
so, if we can find one of the boat people for whom it can be proved that your scenario is false
would that suffice to prove that your proposition is false?
or would you require that 100% of them must be provable?
you make it sound like all of them:
* have money to start with (enough for a complex set of plane trips)
* are likely to be terrorists (even the kids)
* are all of criminal intent (knowing full well all of the laws and knowingly breaking them)
i’d say what is called for is some good investigative journalism working from both Indonesia and from source countries - finding and following real boat people
without that research everything anyone says is just whim and emotion
and the colour of most of the emotion is pretty ugly
pop
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/
Troofie, yez are fair dinkum citin’ The Telegraph as an authoritative source? Jayzuz. Oi stopped buyin’ that rag when oi realised that the cheap ink and coarse paper was irritatin’ me *rse somethin’ fearful. Your world view will improve immensely once you give your nether regions a break from such self punishment.
Suzanne Blake, oh Mary wept! Ye say:
“I don’t recall Australia starting any war? We went into … Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere after conflicts had started.”
Oh mother o’ gawd. If yez don’t know the difference between a war and an insurrection, where the latter involves armed conflict between the population of a nation within a nation, then there’s no hope for yez. Just-no-hope. And ye dare ta voice such a totally uninformed opinion in public space. Fer shame. If this was an old fashioned town hall meetin’ yez’d be too embarrassed by the public scorn t’ever show yer face in sunlight agin. No wonder yez don’t think that we owe the poor bleddy Iraqis and Afghanis anything. Yez are all bad attitude and no knowledge.
I’m off to restore me karma after this terrible upset. I’m goin’ ta burn down the Blake Family Memorial Pissoir at Famine Headland in revenge. Mutton Bird Island will be a better place for purging tha’ only memory o’ your mob.
I can’t cope. I’m goin’ ta burn
Alternative article title: “How rusted on Labor supporters can rationalise an immoral policy.”
For a discussion on the “morality of offshore processing” see Petro Georgiou’s column in the Age last week.
@pop - Can I come too?
My new friend who also happens to be an aboriginal woman says that Australia is a racist country - she should know! My daughter in law has experienced it, and three of my grandkids probably will - if they haven’t already! Their mother’s family had to flee persecution in the 80’s. Lovely people, proud of their new culture and their homeland culture?
Those who trot out the “illegals” and “queue jumpers” rubbish show at least a lack of imagination. For over ten years+ they trot out the same lies using the same language - no imagination? No truth either? Unbelievable!
When their lies are challenged they plead that there’s a loophole in the law - what it REALLY means is what they sprout! How convenient! If I’m charged with speeding can I plead the same ‘legal’ anomaly?A ‘loop hole’ in the Law, your Honour? As I’ve said before - I despair!
@Peter Ormonde and Cairns, SBH and like minded people-Marilyn of course! Where can we go to escape this horrific environment of racism fueled by lies, hatred and fear?
@CHESS C - Petro Georgio? The racists don’t refer to him do they? Or Judy Moylan or Judith Treoth? Funny that?Libs with a conscience? Libs who believe in treating people with decency and respect; Libs who know the truth about people seeking protection and find the racist policies repugnant? A rarity, sadly!
@POLICEMAN MAC - Very good! I’m with you too!
Bernard asks the right question, but comes up with the wrong answer. In fact, a number of philosophers have asked the question: what are our moral obligations to refugees? There are few moral philosophers of a liberal stripe who would agree that even notionally our moral obligations stop at our borders. The answer almost all agree on is this: that we have moral obligations to our fellow humans, and that all else being equal these oblige us to save someone’s life if they turn up at our doorstep. All of them also agree that, in the developed world, the relative cost to us of absorbing the refugees who come is so small that there is no liberal justification for not accepting them.
The argument that Labor keeps trotting about preventing people from dying, and which Bernard swallows, is nice in theory. However, the facts are these. Australia’s refugee policies are the primary reason why people die. Because we have ‘excised’ our offshore territories, they have to come much further than they otherwise would. Because we have extremely hefty penalties on people smugglers, the kingpins send people out to sea with young naive Indonesian fishermen who are inexperienced sailors. Because of our hostile reaction to boat arrivals and because we impound boats, the best tactic for people smugglers is to send them out on rickety boats that are likely to fall apart, so that our navy is forced to rescue them.
If our only real concern was preventing people from dying, well, the answer’s pretty easy. We can institute an offshore process in our embassies (or perhaps on a big ocean liner in a port), so people in Indonesia can apply for refugee status there. However, what we would have to do is guarantee that if they fulfil the criteria, they would be accepted here - that is, the process would be equivalent to what they got here. This would obviously increase the number of refugees here. That would be the sensible policy solution if, as Bernard suggests, the government’s concern is really to prevent people dying.
The hard, unbearable truth that comfortably off Australians do not recognise is this: if you are running in fear of your life, as so many of these are, there are very few hurdles you aren’t prepared to cross for a chance at safety. Deterrence, in this situation, is both ineffective and, in the end, immoral.
@REDRANTER - Indeed! Thank you!
Someone earlier raised the question of how people are treated in Indonesia? IF they’d followed the plight of the people of East Timor; how the military/police are corrupt(books have been written, and I have at least one documentary about this - quite lengthy and detailed) the role of these bodies in crimes of violence and even terrorist activites; the plight of people who work for almost nothing and are kept like slaves etc. All this doesn’t bode well for having any confidence in how Indonesia upholds human rights - of anyone, including their own citizens!
SB needs to educate herself on these issues - not out of conservative ‘think books’ or the Murdoch media. The role Australia played in the 1960’s re the overthrow of an elected President, plus the murder of journalists in ‘75 only adds to the examples. I have no confidence that asylum seekers in Indonesia would be looked after in a humane manner. I’ve read of asylum seekers who’ve been held in their jails just for being there? Not much different to Malaysia, sadly! I don’t think Indonesia is a signatory to the Migration Laws either or to other International Laws and Declarations?
Imagine the hysteria in this country if we took 20,000 refugees every year? If we wanted to stop the boats what about offering refugees fair processing in Indonesia, and that the maximum wait there would be 2 years, not 20 years as it is now? Refugees so processed would then be flown to Australia to start their new life. No risky boat journey. No mandatory detention. Australia meets its obligations under the Refugee Convention. But this only applies to refugees moving towards Australia. Refugees who arrive in Australia are processed in Australia.
Chess C, which rusted on supporters do you mean?
Why Indonesia? Seems a long way away from the action.
How bout the camps in Rwanda, Pakistan and Thailand?
Or is the requirement for the left to care about you that you can find yourself several grand to fly to the other side of the world?
If the objective is to deter boats, why don’t they bring them over from Malaysia in Australian Navy boats, process them in Australia and that’s all? They want to pay an exorbitant amount of money on the Malaysian solution, so this probably wouldn’t even be that costly in comparison.
One of the main problems with Malaysia is not only that they could “mistreat” the refugees, it’s that they could send them back. For many that is as much a death sentence as a smugglers’ boat.
Celina…
Another excellent comment
your extrapolations are truly breathtaking TTH
Hmm … a redux of the Zionist claim that there are “self-hating Jews” and for just the same reason: to cast all dissent from the bigoted zealots in charge, or worse — those that have no view but their own interest but think they should pander to bigoted zealots — as treacherous or ethically bankrupt.
This is a textbook example of misdirection, because the utterers of this lie are do so without conviction.
Truth Hurts - your claim to care more about the people in camps in Rwanda, Pakistan and Thailand is disingenuous because you have made clear in your posts that you are opposed to increasing our refugee intake and you have demonstrated so little understanding of the perils that refugees face wherever they are. No one chooses to be a refugee. Life on the refugee trail is about having circumstances forced on you, in which you may be fortunate enough to take calculated risks. If you are able to sell everything you have and move from a camp in the country of origin, to a later country of refuge, and that guarantees your survival, then of course you take the risk. So are you suggesting that because these refugees have taken risks, and reached Indonesia, they should be punished in favour of those that were not able or did not take risks? My suggestion about fair processing of those refugees who are lucky enough to reach Indonesia was based on discussions by refugee advocates with refugees who came to Australia by boat. When the proposition that I outlined, was put to them, they said that if that had been the case when they were Indonesia, they would not have got on a boat.
Its all well and good to make grandeur assertions such as “queue jumpers” “economic refugees” “they destroy documents” and whatever other cr*p people such as Suzanne or The Truth Hurts hear on Today Tonight or other questionable media outlets, from the comfort of their couches, and then decide to take as gospel. But to espouse it without even bothering to check the facts for yourselves is truly disgusting. As someone who works in migration, and has worked with refugees, including boat people, let me tell you a few things Suzanne and TTH and others on here who truly have no idea how lucky they are.
First and foremost, there is no queue. Refugee status is not something you pop down to your local UNHCR branch and line up for like you would a Kiss concert.
Secondly, people arriving by boat apparently take up the positions for the more “deserving” refugees. False. The quotas of apparent “legitmate” refugees through the UNHCR that are taken are not affected one bit by the number of ‘illegal’ arrivals. This aside, who are TTH to sit and judge who is considered more in need? And how do you propose to judge? One a scale of one to dead? How to you discern who is more needy between someone who might starve to death, and someone who may be bombed to death?
Third, destruction of documents. Another lovely Today Tonight or ACA fallacy. This is not to suggest that some boat people do not destroy documents, I’m sure there may be a minority who do. But a majority do not. If you believe they all destroy documents, I’m sure you also believe they all threw their children into the ocean too and that the Tampa was full of terrorists. To simply state that the reason these people have no documents is to show a total ignorance of the situations these people face. In many cases, the government does not hand out ID, or confiscates it. Many “legitimate” refugees who arrive here after filling out the requisite paper also do not have ID. True story. Also, if you work for the government and your trying to escape people persecuting those working for said government, is it really wise to go to the airport and declare your intention to leave? Or file documents stating your intention to leave? Many of the young unaccompanied minors who come here minus docs. have had fathers who work for the coalition (ie the US and Australia) who have been killed by the Taliban, who then kill of family members. “proper” channels are best you say? On a final note, how many of you people against boat arrivals have ever encountered someone who has arrived by boat, let alone conversed with them? Have you ever had to sit there and watch a grown man cry over the fact that his entire family were murdered while they were all waiting for their applications to be processed? How he then had to take a harrowing journey to escape those who killed his children and were then coming after him? Ever listened to a young boy tell of the horrors he grew up with, the horrors of the journey he took to get here, and then the horror and confusion he felt of being thrown in prison when he got here? I didn’t think so. Too busy enjoying your lucky life.
i love you Kat Smith
pop
Sorry to spoil the party Kat et al, but in my past life I worked for DIMA/DIMIA overseas interviewing UNHCR mandated applicants, in Australia at Port Hedland, Curtin , Woomera and Baxter, as well as Nauru and Manus Island. All in all I spent about 10 years dealing face to face with boat arrivals, air arrivals and refugees in offshore camps. I’ve been sitting back watching with interest the debate and drawn out slanging match and feel it is time to speak up. So here are some facts from another perspective of a person who interacts with people arriving by boat who seek protection in Australia:
The vast majority either destroy their ID documents or they have them forwarded by organisers once they are safely in Australia. It s a fact of life - the numbers we are dealing with and their countries of claimed origin make it impossible not to have ID and/or travel documents. You are simply unable to leave countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan and make your way through to Malaysia (yes that’s how they get there - by air and no visa required as they are from Muslim countries). Getting from Malaysia through to Indonesia can at times be slightly problematic but nothing a little money cant fix.
Iraqis and Iranians for example, may move through up to 3-4 UNHCR signatory countries prior to arriving here by boat. Afghans, depending on which route they take, may pass through between 1-3. Tell me this is not forum shopping.
Many, if not the majority, of boat arrivals are carefully coached by organisers and their associates about what to expect during the process, even down to the questions they are asked at interview. There have been instances where nearly the whole group of boat arrivals off one vessel have almost the exact same story of claimed persecution, escape from their claimed country of origin, same routes etc which are for the most part pure fallacy because when pressed for details the stories unravelled quickly.
The reason why so many asylum seekers were successful from 1999-2001 was not because they had necessarily suffered persecution in their country of origin, but because the view held by the RRT and Federal Court was that they could not be returned simply because they had left their country and would therefore be perceived to be against the regime in power at the time. There are a plethora of RRT decisions where the presiding member had decided that the appellant (asylum seeker whose primary protection claim had been refused by DIMA/DIMIA as it was then) was a complete stranger to the truth or who ruled that the claimed persecution was not convention related etc, but was unable to do anything but rule in favour of the appellant because of perceived political opinion due to the fact that they were outside their country of origin.
I have interviewed countless persons of Hazara ethnicity claiming to be from Afghanistan but in fact have never set foot in the country. There is still a huge Hazara population in Pakistan - Quetta actually, and there were for a time, large numbers from Quetta trying to pass themselves off as Afghan Hazaras. There are also large Hazara populations in the Gulf Region (Dubai and Abu Dhabi) as well as Iran. Many from these areas claimed to be fleeing from Afghanistan. This not to say that anyone claiming to be from a Hazara from Afghanistan is an imposter, merely that there are plenty of people who will try to work the system and piggyback on the misery of others.
I also witnessed first hand self mutilation by detainees and in one particular case, a whole family “voluntarily”sewing their lips together in reaction to their refusal decision. I use the term “voluntarily” very loosely indeed, as none of the children had at that point reached 18 and I am still wondering how the infant child felt about having its lips sewn together by another family member.
Unfortunately there are those in the wider community who are willing to believe unquestioningly, anything and everything that an asylum seeker claims and instantly conclude that because they have arrived here (lawfully or otherwise), they are instantly deserving of protection. Many are, but there are many whose claims, motives and intentions need to be explored in depth.
On a final point, air arrivals seeking asylum vastly outnumber boat arrivals and that is a fact that no one can dispute. However, to put the matter into absolute context, over 95% of those air arrivals get here lawfully, on travel documents with valid visas. They then claim asylum once they have passed through the border and are in the community.
And here we have yet more evidence of why DIAC needs a deep purge. So all these swarthy foreigners claiming to be escaping a bit of nastiness back home are trying it on - that right?
The culture within this Department is deeply hostile to refugees in general and unlawful entries in particular. If there is the slightest opportunity to deny entry or protection they seize it eagerly. They work on suspicion not facts. And they are deeply deeply suspicious. They think that is their job. They protect our borders like police without uniforms, without evidence and without accountability.
Here’s an example: I have an Iranian friend who was here on a tourist visa at the time of the upsurge against the current regime. He was a skilled worker, paid taxes and had a good job. He was one of these appalling young people with constant contact with his friends and family back home via a plethora of gadgets. He was inflamed by their hope and anger and gleefully joined in the protests here, only one morning to find himself splattered all over Youtube in the company of other Iranian dissidents. His brother sent him the link from Iran.
Next thing he knows his mother is getting a series of late night visits from the local religious thugs (Basijis) warning her to tell him to cut it out. His brother’s business loses all its work from the government. Neighbours stop speaking to his family in the street. His mother who is 84 tells him not to come home. They are terrified. He has two months left on his visa before he must go back.
So I let him know about applying for refugee status here - explain the Australian law to him - and he does so. I help him put together his applications. He is both reluctant and nervous. But he is refused. Why? Because the anonymous little nazi in DIAC decides that my friend has only undertaken his protests to improve his chances of staying here. No evidence, no questioning, just a nasty little suspicion. That’s enough. And on that basis they would have sent him back - to what? Not their problem apparently.
The RRT took 30 seconds to overturn this decision. They overturn a lot of them. They are overturned because these decisions are based on the imaginings of nasty hateful little bureaucrats who think people act from the same base motives that they themselves have in life.
There is a nasty culture operating in DIAC …. the sort of officious anonymous little characters who made the cattle wagons run on time in Germany I reckon. They are on a mission to protect our borders. They think they are acting on our behalf, in our name, that this is what we want and that this is what the law says. They are wrong on all counts. And we should not permit this any more.
This is where the Government must start - and it starts at the top with getting rid of Phil Ruddock’s former Chief of Staff - the current head of DIAC Mr Metcalfe.
seems that for us outsiders (and maybe it’s actually everyone)
nobody knows what the truth is
i’ll tell you first i’m not a Jew
a Muslim? No, i’m not that too
i’m not a Christian that’s for sure
a Buddhist? No, not any more
but i have always loved the Word
the Ten Commandments that i heard
when i was young i learned them well
and now i’m old i’ve this to tell
the three or four that are the first
their meaning is in truth immersed
old Moses gave us words profound
their truth is such a solid ground
the first - “there is no truth but all”
it’s infinite - there is no wall
no boundary to what can be
no limit to the truth you see
it’s seems so simple yet it’s not
the greatest of the Jew’s Mitzvot
like quantum physics: if you know
you don’t! Confused? To study go!
the second - is the most abused
and many a scholar’s been confused
it talks of idols - gold or wood
a face on God is not so good
don’t fool yourself is what it means
a piece of truth’s not what it seems
you can not isolate one bit
and then in homage bow to it
i wonder if you understand?
so take a look at your right hand
is that the truth? is that hand you?
your fingernail is that “you” too?
The Truth you can not subdivide
and cast the unknown parts aside
the Wrath of God will strike you down
and in your foolishness you’ll drown
and while we’re talking number two
here’s something you should never do
don’t claim that God is this or that
He’s merciful or tall or fat
because you see that’s number three
to claim you know and make decree
to “swear to God” you know the truth
as if you were some clever sleuth
the Law dictates “do not assert”
the power of words is power to hurt
it’s only in a court of Law
that you’ll be sworn to what you saw
so don’t mislead your fellow man
don’t lead him to some Promised Land
don’t seek to rule or lie to win
don’t claim you know where to begin
those three above are all you need
the forth means study them and heed:
each week one day is set aside
to know you should by them abide
one final word before i go
my words above are claims you know
i’ve broken number three it’s true
and breaking that breaks one and two
pop
Ain’t that the truth! Thanks, Pop! Nice work too!
DINSTAR- And did you refer to asylum seekers as ‘reffos’? I know someone who worked at Wimmera and he did, as did his partner etc. As Policeman M said above, those employed by DIMIA and SERCO and others are prejudiced against asylum seekers, and/or racist. They take their prejudices with them or they’re formed while they’re there. I know a woman who advocates for asylum seekers and she reinforces this view. She said some are OK, occasionally one will be very helpful and kind, but too many are dictatorial, racist and just make things difficult - BECAUSE THEY CAN! Such as, not informing people of the importance of getting certain ‘unclear’ questions on applications etc correct, but when they’re presented, take great joy in pointing to the mistake/s. This means going back to the city(Sydney) and starting again!
My understanding of the Hazara people is that they’re persecuted in other Muslim countries, not just Afghanistan. The Inquiry entitled ‘A Last Resort’ found that 92% of kids from Iran were in need of protection, and 98% of kids from Iraq the same. One would assume from this that their parents lives were also at risk? Even Saddam or Iran didn’t execute kids?(Iran has executed a 16 yr old young rape victim?)
In Iraq and Iran it was a crime to leave the country, punishable by death. Many people who’ve been sent back or who ‘volunteered’ to go home ended up murdered, and sometimes their kids did too? One man was choked to death with barb wire in front of his wife and children. There’s books etc to read about these facts!
“I have interviewed countless persons of Hazara ethnicity.” Via an interpreter or do you speak their language? I’ve read of cases where there’s frequently a mistake in interpreting different people.
Those who arrive by plane and seek asylum are often people who don’t tell the truth on their visa application/s. Many just ‘disappear’ into the community. Today, there could be 40-60,000 such people in Australia. No hysteria over them?
I used to work in a school, but that didn’t make me an expert on Education curriculum, policy etc. You may have worked in these places, but you’re just as capable of being biased, racist or just plain intolerant as anyone else. The Attorney General wasn’t expert enough in the Law to assert that the Malaysia plan was unlawful? Nor was Ruddock or Howard - both lawyers! Senator George Brandis makes legal ‘guffs’ all the time - he was a Barrister in another life!
You are no more an expert on Immigration, Human Rights or International Law than I am!Also, 2011 is recognised as the most bloody time in 10 years for civilians in Afghanistan- I’d suggest that would probably be a very good reason why so many are fleeing! Recent bombings bear this out. Our Govt members “condemned the bombings”? What? They’ve been shooting to kill and participating in ‘drones’ and other forms of bombing excursions, and they “condemn” these bombings? Arrogance! Amazing?
As someone has suggested already - why don’t Australian authorities with interpreters and other social network people go to Malaysia and/or Indonesia and bring people here? Cost less, get rid of the need to take a risk in old and leaky boats and help prevent human rights abuses in those countries? In comparison to the rest of the world, we don’t rate very highly re immigration numbers - we boast a lot, but don’t back it up with action/s?
Treating people with dignity and respect is not a weakness as many who post here assert. It’s shameful that they either don’t know what decency is, or think it OK to pick and choose who receives it?
LIZ45 -
1. At no time did I claim to be an expert, I spoke from experience - not claimed expertise;
2. Just because a person arrives by air or boat and claims asylum does not automatically make them a refugee;
3. From a personal point of view, every onshore asylum seeker I conducted an interviewed was done so with the aid of an interpreter who was competent in the language spoken by the interviewee with a representative present (be they migration agent, advocate or in some cases, a solicitor). All interviews were recorded and a copy provided to the interviewee. If there was ever any misunderstanding on the part of the interviewee or interpreter (or myself) it was clarified and if required, a fresh interpreter was provided.
4. I take it that if you worked in a school you would know something about the pupils you interacted with, but you are not required to or expected to be an expert on education policy and curriculum. Same same for me - I would not for a moment sledge you personally if you made comments based on many years of your own experience on how the system worked and the dealings you had with pupils. This would be out of common courtesy and the fact that as I would only have anecdotal, not real evidence with which to form an opinion - because I wasn’t there.
5. No I did not refer to asylum seekers as “reffos” for a couple of reasons, Firstly, they weren’t refugees when I had dealings with them - they were asylum seekers until they were found to be in need of protection. Secondly asylum seekers were found to be refugees I, like many of my former colleagues, used the term “‘PV (protection visa) holders” and in a lot of cases I have kept in touch with these people and formed close friendships that are still .
6. There is a perception which is quite unfounded, that anyone who works (or has worked) for DIMA/DIMIA/DIAC over the years dealing with asylum seekers has political views 25 degrees to the right of George W Bush. This is simply a cop out for those who have no real understanding of the work that is done by these people.
Unfortunately, the inflammatory comments made by some people who submit posts demonstrate a clear lack of objectivity. Being passionate about a cause is good, but being totally subjective and shouting down anyone who dares to comment from personal experience is not what it’s about.
Good night, sleep tight and don’t let the bed bugs bite.
Interesting article in todays Sun Herald on Page 19.
Discussing the ‘missing’ boat in October 2009 and that it may be in International waters or Indonesian waters.
The interesting aspect, is that multiple people on the boat were in contact with their familes in Afghanistan, through Satellite phones. Mobile phones would have had no reception in that area.
Sounds like well organised to me.
@DINSTAR - Maybe it was just by inference. Read the beginning of your original post and then state that you weren’t trying to impose some superior knowledge due to your employment in the field?
As a person who worked for the Educ. Dept years ago, it was my input into the care of a child with several disabilities who went into bat for that child who I insisted, with the support of my immediate superior was being physically and psychologically abused. The so-called ‘experts’ employed by the Dept accused me of being ‘emotionally involved’? I accompanied my superior to see a child Psychiatrist who ultimately rang the school and insisted that only myself or this immediate supervisor were to be in charge of this little boy - after she interviewed his father she said that his life was in danger? I was right - unqualified? but was the carer of this little boy who was only 6 yrs old. I was almost ready to take him home in order to save him? Just one example of my almost 10 yrs experience of taking care of children, observing, listening and using my ‘gut’?
I’ve read several books, read many articles, and sadly, the role of too many employees of Serco or the one previous were too keen to follow the instructions and the political, human rights attitudes of the then Ministers and the bosses at DIMIA, Serco and Agm? ACM? whoever? I urge you to read ‘The Bitter Shore’, ‘From Nothing to Zero’ ‘Seeking Asylum’ the report of the Inquiry into the detention of children, ‘A Last Resort’ then go to the HREOC website, Amnesty International, Chilout. Rural Australians for Refugees, the website of the Edmund Rice Peace and Justice Committee website, the book, “Following Then Home’ a book by Father Frank Brennan(title escapes me) articles Julian Burnside QC, posts on this site by Pamela Curr and ShepherdMarilyn, and many others?
I know the difference between asylum seekers and refugees. I’ve listened, read etc reports of those who work closely with asylum seekers on legal matters etc. I’m not an idiot. I don’t agree that just because you work with asylum seekers or even converse with them that you either know all legal matters, human rights or anything else that pertains to them. I’m also aware of the sadly ingrained racist and sexist attitudes towards pregnant women, breast feeding mothers and women who present with labour pains and how they’re treated, how their husbands/partners are treated and sadly, how the family is treated after the woman and baby are ready for release. One such woman was locked up in a motel for the first 10 months of her baby boy’s life.
All these issues are flagrant abuses of plain ordinary human rights, but more importantly, just ordinary garden variety dignity, respect and awareness!
Don’t presume that you’re automatically superior and the rest of us know zilch!
I’m glad that the women before me did amazing and passionate things like chaining themselves to the railings of parliament buildings protesting against their exclusion from voting. I’m glad that women were finally able to gain legal degrees, and that these amazing women with decent male colleagues fought and changed many laws and procedures re marriage and property settlement/s, rape laws, domestic violence and yes, organisations like Chilout who are sadly, once again having to fight for the human rights of kids in detention centres!
These women were passionate and subjective - and I’m bloody glad they were!
@Liz you’ve worked for everyone, u’ve been everywhere, you know it all, your opinion is the only opinion, your view is sacrosanct. And yet you are utterly unconvincing. Narcissism does that to you.
Dinstar
“Iraqis and Iranians for example, may move through up to 3-4 UNHCR signatory countries prior to arriving here by boat. Afghans, depending on which route they take, may pass through between 1-3. Tell me this is not forum shopping.’
Is this a valid argument? Iraqis, Iranians and Afghanis start in signatory countries but other than going north overland there’s not to many routes to Australia that would have them transiting signatory countries or rather signatory countries likely to treat them any better than the signatory country they are fleeing.
As to the charge of ‘forum shpping’, isn’t this just a way to describe running for your life? By leaving your dangerous homeland aren’t you ipso facto forum shopping?
Policeman M;
and so because of your one interaction, not even a personal interaction, you smear an entire department? Roughly 6000 staff?
No, of course, your being even handed there mate, totally reasonable.
‘And they are deeply deeply suspicious. They think that is their job. They protect our borders like police without uniforms, without evidence and without accountability.’
Ooooooookkkkkk, so no accountability, but you refer to the RRT, is that not accountability?
Actually, under the Migration Act, it is the responsibility of DIAC officers to protect our borders, and they do wear uniforms, and in the case of Compliance officers they even wear badge’s (shock and horror!).
If he was a skilled worker, why not apply for Skilled Migration?
‘explain the Australian law to him’, are you a migration agent? How do you have such an incredible understanding of the legislation?
‘The RRT took 30 seconds’, seriously? Look, by the sounds of it you were offended by this process and decision, thats your opinion and your entitled to it, but taking artistic licence with the truth just to have a rant gets you no where.
@MICHAEL - My last post was in answer to someone else’s comments to me - not you!
Case of the pot and the kettle - at best me thinks! So it’s OK for you to assume/presume superiority even to the lengths of disregarding/ridiculing others who disagree with you. Shock/horror that I admit to studying the issue and making informed decisions accordingly, or that I just have a sense of treating people decently - regardless of who they are, the colour of their skin or the language they speak.
I reject the absolute hypocrisy and lack of fairness in this long suffering discussion about boat people! In contrast to the non existent discussion/admission of the overwhelming number of people who arrive by plane - tens of thousands who could really be here - illegally?
There’s a very good article on so-called “people smugglers” in the Summer 2009 issue of STARTTS - worth a read!
@Liz
Kiddo I don’t pretend to be anything other than what I am. It may not seem pretty to you but it’s consistent, unsactimonuous and honest. Boat people are for the most part opportunistic criminals, with some exceptions - the victimized women & children for whom I feel great pity. The vast majority of the young males are hideous bastards who will forever be a problem here as they were in their homeland. No pity for them, just the full force of Law.
You on the other hand, use the good, the bad & the ugly as a political tool to justify & force Leftist dogma on the rest of us. Australia has your number mate!!
Liz;
‘@DINSTAR - Maybe it was just by inference. Read the beginning of your original post and then state that you weren’t trying to impose some superior knowledge due to your employment in the field?’
Would her employment in the field not bring about a superior knowledge than someone who has little to no experience in the field?
I would suggest to you that you follow your own advice ‘Don’t presume that you’re automatically superior and the rest of us know zilch!’ Its actually very good advice.
Keep it up Beecher and your beloved site will go the same way as all Left wing bullshit! You are creating a forum that speaks to itself!
Actually, I agree with Liz, particularly since the post by Dinstar mentioned me specifically. I feel that Dinstar was of the opinion that because they had worked for DIAC, they obviously were able to dispel or refute my arguments/knowledge with your so-called “facts”. But Dinstar, did I mention where I worked…? For all you know it could have been for DIAC? By implying that you wish to “spoil the party” for people like me implies that you are the only one who truly knows the situation with regard to immigration in Australia, and I find that totally condescending.
Thankfully, I don’t work for DIAC, but this should not detract from my knowledge any more than you working for DIAC apparently makes you more knowledgeable. I can tell you that I will support the opinion of some of the people who have posted on here regarding DIAC staff. I have had run ins with the Dept in areas ranging from refugee issues to skilled worker issues to spouse visa issues. And each time I am astounded by the lack of country knowledge as well as cultural knowledge of Dept. staff. Some of the requests, questions asked of clients and reasons for decisions that I have encountered are truly mind boggling. I truly wish I could provide examples, but legally I am not allowed to. I will say though that the attitude of the staff toward certain types of client leaves a lot to be desired. And not just refugees.
Michael, your comment that “The vast majority of the young males are hideous bastards who will forever be a problem here as they were in their homeland. No pity for them, just the full force of Law.” is disgusting and shows that you clearly have absolutely no capacity to apply reason to an argument. I think it has been acknowledged that not all men who come out here on boats are refugees. But a majority are/were found to be, even under the Howard government. Have you even ever met any of these so-called hideous bastards? Or are you basing this opinion on something you saw on Today Tonight or the Bolt Report?
@KIT KAT
Honey I know it’s hard for you to articulate your thoughts without patronizing but you’ll have to learn if you are to be taken seriously. For now you’re just a talking head.
@KNACK - We constantly hear(or at least I do? I don’t know who or what you watch, read or listen to) that SERCO employees and those who came before them are not suitably trained to deal with people who are suffering from trauma/and or a mental illness etc. I LISTEN to people like Professor Louise Newman who is a highly qualified Psychiatrist and is an adviser to the current Federal Govt on issues pertaining to the mental health of detainees. I’ve also been to a seminar conducted for investigating the many facets of domestic violence.
Over the years I’ve listened to Psychologists and Psychiatrists in every state where there’s been detention centres - which is almost every one? The constant theme by these highly qualified people is re the absence of suitable training. In this instance, they’ve been the people who’ve been at the coal face of the illnesses and suffering of asylum seekers.
As well as that, there are organisations whose primary role is to provide counselling and support for people who are in this country and suffering from trauma, including PTSD. This is called STARTTS.
The point re my experience was to point out, that the person/people who’d make a once a month visit thought they had a superior knowledge over the person who saw on a daily basis the evidence of abuse on this child’s body - ME? I also made sure that I had someone else view the ‘evidence’? I proved to be correct. This was about 30 yrs ago, and is probably just one instance into Laws changeing to protect children from abuse, and to ensure that those in control abide by the rules of reporting and taking action.
Also, it’s difficult for a person to ‘go out on a limb’ when they’re worried about ‘rocking the boat’ and putting their jobs in jeopardy? I don’t hear, read or see too many employees of SERCO going to the media about physical, sexual or psychological abuse of detainees. In fact, since TAMPA I could count them on one hand? Moreover, there are many cases where the Fed Govt(particularly under Howard) have been taken to Court over their negligence re asylum seekers. One documented case is in the book, ‘The Bitter Shore’ by a journalist called, Jaqui Everitt?. I suggest you read it! The role of the workers at Villawood and the medical personnel who were involved, plus the personal involvement of Phillip Ruddick was nothing short of appalling! He was determined that this little boy was going to stay in detention, even if it meant that he’d be permanently in a mental ‘coma’ - completely withdrawn from reality.
Many millions have been paid out to people in detention centres who’ve been treated at best with disdain and racism. The cost to taxpayers runs into millions, with ongoing costs re medical/psychological treatment. It is unnecessary and inhumane! It is barbaric and ‘unchristian’ perpetrated by people who profess to uphold ‘family and traditional values’ and who embrace christianity? Pity they didn’t act like it!
@MICHAEL - I’ve had the privilege of meeting several young males who are now permanent citizens, some of whom can vote, some have to wait another little while. I’ve been privileged to hear their stories and I’m constantly overwhelmed by their lack of violent thoughts let alone intent. Their history and experiences are hideous; no child or young adult should see their parents, their siblings die either by snipers or in a bombed bus - should have to be told that there’s not enough of their loved ones to bury. These young men, because they had a loving network of support(from my friend, her daughter and others) are studying at TAFE or Uni or have jobs in nursing, hospitality or other endeavours. They are appreciative of our friendship and love and in their desire to repay cook the most amazing food you could imagine! Australia is indeed fortunate that they’re here!
I’ve a documentary called MV TAMPA and the young unaccompanied minors who were taken in by New Zealand took to their opportunities with overwhelming gratitude. They and the families put on a concert for Capt Rinnan on his last trip to NZ. They presented him with cards and small gifts and ‘put on’ a display of their cultural celebrations which included dancing etc. He was very moved by this response, as he’s a quiet man who doesn’t like a ‘fuss’?
These young men would be welcomed in my home any time. I feel proud to have met them and continually impressed by their positive attitudes, particularly when I know their history. These people are only in their early to mid 30’s? They show more maturity and compassion than you do!
I think this points to the fact, that if you treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, they’ll respond accordingly. This has been my experience over the last 8? 10? years?
@Liz
Liz you put your case eloquently and I can see it’s heartfelt. Whilst we may not agree on many things, I can’t help but respect a passionate argument. Accept my apology for at times being over zealous in my vitriol.
Mwah!
Liz (above): I’ve a post on the thread ‘Politics is a Sysiphean Task’ where I talk a little about the commonality of the cultures of DIAC and child protection services (from which I am currently resting). You mention above the traumatising nature of working for SERCO. I’d suggest that working for DIAC is similar in so far as one either fits in with a traumatising culture or not. If not, the door, by fair means or foul. You can be proud of yourself for being a refusenik, for sure. Over time I’ve noted that several of the whistle blowers at SERCO have been RN’s which goes to the depth of educated humanity and compassion that they have compared to the general population of SERCO and DIAC employees.
Policeman Mac (Trans: Mrs Walleye Mac)
I guess the truth is a bit like the story of the blind men and the elephant or the first three commandments
some people naturally see things in black and white with no shades of grey
what saddens me is the knowledge that with increasing economic stress the world is likely to become more polarized with issues such as this and maybe there will be ever more people hardening their hearts
i worry that that path leads to Eloi and Morlocks
pop
@ Mikey , I’m sure the same could be said for you?