Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Public Forum: What’s Wrong with Abbott’s Refugee Policy?

By RAC 14 October 2013 138

Event starts 6:30pm. Free refreshments from 6pm. Speakers including Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. All welcome.

Location: Haydon-Allen Lecture Theatre (The Tank), Australian National University.

A ‘three-star’ general appointed to use military force to stop asylum seekers. A ‘blackout’ on reporting the numbers of refugees arriving by boat. Sending vulnerable men, women and children seeking our assistance to remote detention camps in neighbouring third world countries. Stripping funds for legal assistance for asylum seekers. Eliminating any right to appeal refugee status in the courts. Forcing anyone found to be a refugee entitled to protection to reapply for a Temporary Protection Visa every 3 years, so they live forever in fear of being deported. What’s wrong with this picture? What can we do to change it?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
138 Responses to
Public Forum: What’s Wrong with Abbott’s Refugee Policy?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
7
thebrownstreak69 5:47 pm 22 Oct 13

housebound said :

Thumper said :

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Yep, anyone who disagrees with an unworkable policy that allows preferential treatment to those with the means to get here and ensures many asylum seekers will drown on the way here is definitely a dirty stinking racist.

And anyone who disagrees with the policies of deterrence is clearly a loony, left wing, communist, terrorist supporter.

I love it when name calling replaces sensible debate, it’s so much more effective in convincing people.

Exactly.

When the so called “bleeding heart loonie left” and so called “raving right wing racists” realise that they both have some perfectly valid points then we may actually see some progress.

But it appears that it is much easier to simply fling insults than to actually sit down and have a rational discussion about all relevant issues.

And the ultimate losers are the refugees currently sitting in Indonesia waiting for a boat.

So right. But trading insults seems to be the name of the game these days.

Don’t hold your breath.

It would be good if we could bring this back to fact and logic. There was some good debate earlier in this thread. If people disagree than that’s OK, but let’s play the ball and not the man.

housebound 4:36 pm 22 Oct 13

Thumper said :

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Yep, anyone who disagrees with an unworkable policy that allows preferential treatment to those with the means to get here and ensures many asylum seekers will drown on the way here is definitely a dirty stinking racist.

And anyone who disagrees with the policies of deterrence is clearly a loony, left wing, communist, terrorist supporter.

I love it when name calling replaces sensible debate, it’s so much more effective in convincing people.

Exactly.

When the so called “bleeding heart loonie left” and so called “raving right wing racists” realise that they both have some perfectly valid points then we may actually see some progress.

But it appears that it is much easier to simply fling insults than to actually sit down and have a rational discussion about all relevant issues.

And the ultimate losers are the refugees currently sitting in Indonesia waiting for a boat.

So right. But trading insults seems to be the name of the game these days.

Don’t hold your breath.

Thumper 4:32 pm 22 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Yep, anyone who disagrees with an unworkable policy that allows preferential treatment to those with the means to get here and ensures many asylum seekers will drown on the way here is definitely a dirty stinking racist.

And anyone who disagrees with the policies of deterrence is clearly a loony, left wing, communist, terrorist supporter.

I love it when name calling replaces sensible debate, it’s so much more effective in convincing people.

Exactly.

When the so called “bleeding heart loonie left” and so called “raving right wing racists” realise that they both have some perfectly valid points then we may actually see some progress.

But it appears that it is much easier to simply fling insults than to actually sit down and have a rational discussion about all relevant issues.

And the ultimate losers are the refugees currently sitting in Indonesia waiting for a boat.

chewy14 4:18 pm 22 Oct 13

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Yep, anyone who disagrees with an unworkable policy that allows preferential treatment to those with the means to get here and ensures many asylum seekers will drown on the way here is definitely a dirty stinking racist.

And anyone who disagrees with the policies of deterrence is clearly a loony, left wing, communist, terrorist supporter.

I love it when name calling replaces sensible debate, it’s so much more effective in convincing people.

johnboy 3:29 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Yep, definitely a sock puppet.

From memory 5 readers have accused me of sock puppeting when it turns out there are many people who think they’re idiots.

Intriguingly all five of them were stupid and racists.

thebrownstreak69 3:20 pm 22 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

You’ve been asked this a couple of times now, and refused to answer on both occasions.

It hasn’t stopped you throwing around words like ‘racist’ and ‘white Australia policy’ though.

You strike me as being a generally socially aware person, so I’m surprised you won’t engage on this. Perhaps you aren’t as sure of yourself now after reading the comments here?

I don’t enjoy talking to racist fools.

When the “problem” is that the arrivals are found, almost always, to be legitimate refugees there is no problem.

Sure keep them in a processing centre if you insist until the claim can be processed, but I’d rather a country populated entirely by boat people than the cowards who are afraid of them.

Are you accusing me of being a coward who is afraid of boat people? Or a racist fool? If so, I suggest you re-read my comments (after taking some remedial English courses).

Ooooooh … watch it, he’s got the handbag out!

Yep, definitely a sock puppet.

Jim Jones 3:15 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

You’ve been asked this a couple of times now, and refused to answer on both occasions.

It hasn’t stopped you throwing around words like ‘racist’ and ‘white Australia policy’ though.

You strike me as being a generally socially aware person, so I’m surprised you won’t engage on this. Perhaps you aren’t as sure of yourself now after reading the comments here?

I don’t enjoy talking to racist fools.

When the “problem” is that the arrivals are found, almost always, to be legitimate refugees there is no problem.

Sure keep them in a processing centre if you insist until the claim can be processed, but I’d rather a country populated entirely by boat people than the cowards who are afraid of them.

Are you accusing me of being a coward who is afraid of boat people? Or a racist fool? If so, I suggest you re-read my comments (after taking some remedial English courses).

Ooooooh … watch it, he’s got the handbag out!

thebrownstreak69 3:02 pm 22 Oct 13

johnboy said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

You’ve been asked this a couple of times now, and refused to answer on both occasions.

It hasn’t stopped you throwing around words like ‘racist’ and ‘white Australia policy’ though.

You strike me as being a generally socially aware person, so I’m surprised you won’t engage on this. Perhaps you aren’t as sure of yourself now after reading the comments here?

I don’t enjoy talking to racist fools.

When the “problem” is that the arrivals are found, almost always, to be legitimate refugees there is no problem.

Sure keep them in a processing centre if you insist until the claim can be processed, but I’d rather a country populated entirely by boat people than the cowards who are afraid of them.

Are you accusing me of being a coward who is afraid of boat people? Or a racist fool? If so, I suggest you re-read my comments (after taking some remedial English courses).

johnboy 2:54 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

You’ve been asked this a couple of times now, and refused to answer on both occasions.

It hasn’t stopped you throwing around words like ‘racist’ and ‘white Australia policy’ though.

You strike me as being a generally socially aware person, so I’m surprised you won’t engage on this. Perhaps you aren’t as sure of yourself now after reading the comments here?

I don’t enjoy talking to racist fools.

When the “problem” is that the arrivals are found, almost always, to be legitimate refugees there is no problem.

Sure keep them in a processing centre if you insist until the claim can be processed, but I’d rather a country populated entirely by boat people than the cowards who are afraid of them.

thebrownstreak69 2:47 pm 22 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

Is your position that we should execute all boat arrivals and dance on their graves?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Sometimes I think you’re the sockpuppet Johnboy uses when he has the shits and doesn’t want to have to think.

thebrownstreak69 2:46 pm 22 Oct 13

johnboy said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

No.

Nothing left but straw men?

You’ve been asked this a couple of times now, and refused to answer on both occasions.

It hasn’t stopped you throwing around words like ‘racist’ and ‘white Australia policy’ though.

You strike me as being a generally socially aware person, so I’m surprised you won’t engage on this. Perhaps you aren’t as sure of yourself now after reading the comments here?

Jim Jones 2:11 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

Is your position that we should execute all boat arrivals and dance on their graves?

When did you stop beating your wife?

johnboy 1:43 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

No.

Nothing left but straw men?

thebrownstreak69 1:38 pm 22 Oct 13

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

howeph 1:27 pm 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

howeph said :

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

Others would argue they are free to leave whenever they like.

Are you arguing that? If so, then where can they go? More than 80% of them ARE refugees.

thebrownstreak69 said :

As we’ve discussed earlier, the current situation is well short of optimal.

Yes it is.

Australia, however is a nation ruled by law. We have obligations under the law.

I can not tell you how disheartening it is to hear my fellow Australians arguing that we should abandon these principles that our forefathers gave so much to establish.

And it is impossible for you, me or I suspect any of us commenting on The Riot ACT, to comprehend what it must feel like to be the victim of this injustice. For a sense of how this might feel I refer again to the video I’ve posted to this forum previously

Starting at the 50 second mark you hear the detainee asking:

Detainee: “Why am I here? Why?”

Officer: “Medical, Medical” [the Detainee’s face is covered in blood from where he has, out of desperation, deliberately cut himself or bashed his head against the cell wall]

Detainee: “No medical! Why am I here?”

Detainee: “I came with Afghani people. I am here – why?”

Detainee: “Is this the law?”

Detainee: “I won’t be kept here. I swear to God.”

Officer: “They need to check your injuries.”

Detainee: “But it’s my heart that is breaking.”

The video is from Curtin when it was operated under the Howard government. The same and worse has happened under the Rudd and Gillard governments and it is happening right now under the Abbott government.

It is morally wrong. It is unlawful and it is happening in our name.

thebrownstreak69 12:38 pm 22 Oct 13

Postalgeek said :

The language being used is carefully crafted. Scott Morrison doesn’t call refugees ‘illegal’. He, and others, will refer instead to the action of getting to Australia without visa or authorisation as illegal, which is technically true. However, if someone who enters in such a manner is a refugee, such action isn’t punishable in accordance with article 31 of the UN Convention.

This is exactly right. The method of entry is illegal, but we don’t press penalties on genuine refugees.

My issue with this is simply that the language is used to rile up the uneducated. If we were smarter, we would understand that an illegal act, in this context, is really just a byproduct of our legal system, but not really a problem. Unfortunately, some people will want to use this as an excuse to argue ‘well why not other illegal acts’.

Brains and compassion are required here, along with careful processes to ensure we still vet asylum seeking arrivals appropriately.

Postalgeek 11:56 am 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.
Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from, preventing them from abusing the asylum system and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

Morrison is changing the official language to imply criminality where none exists in order to continue the scapegoating of asylum seekers to appeal to braindead bigots who think that the people in boats are all ‘queue-jumpers’ and ‘economic migrants’ (completely contrary to the fact that boat arrivals have the highest percentage of people who are found to be genuine refugees, compared to other modes of arrival).

But you just keep telling yourself that they’re all criminals and terrorists and whatnot. Great job d1ckhead.

The method of entry is illegal. We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Using emotive language isn’t helping, though.

The language being used is carefully crafted. Scott Morrison doesn’t call refugees ‘illegal’. He, and others, will refer instead to the action of getting to Australia without visa or authorisation as illegal, which is technically true. However, if someone who enters in such a manner is a refugee, such action isn’t punishable in accordance with article 31 of the UN Convention.

Some lawyers will argue that illegality in criminal law is something that is punishable conduct, and seeking asylum isn’t punishable ergo if it isn’t punishable it isn’t illegal.

Politifact did an interesting examination of this language, and concluded that claiming that asylum seekers who entered Australia without visas (which essentially means boats because you need a visa to get on a plane) had entered illegally was a half-truth. The language is ambiguous and there are arguments on both sides, depending on how you phrase your language.

All this, of course, pivots on whether the person claiming asylum is a genuine refugee. If they are proven to be otherwise, they will have entered Australia illegal, as I understand it.

thebrownstreak69 11:52 am 22 Oct 13

howeph said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

The method of entry is illegal.

Arriving in Australia by boat is not illegal. People have been doing it for millennia.

Arriving in Australia without a valid visa is illegal.

An Asylum seeker, arriving in Australia without a valid visa is legal, “provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

thebrownstreak69 said :

We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

Others would argue they are free to leave whenever they like.

As we’ve discussed earlier, the current situation is well short of optimal.

howeph 10:35 am 22 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

The method of entry is illegal.

Arriving in Australia by boat is not illegal. People have been doing it for millennia.

Arriving in Australia without a valid visa is illegal.

An Asylum seeker, arriving in Australia without a valid visa is legal, “provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

thebrownstreak69 said :

We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

howeph 10:24 am 22 Oct 13

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Text from this thread.

Robertson said :

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

Again? Show me where I have ever pretended to quote from the convention. Are you making stuff up?

Robertson said :

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

You keep making these general claims that I am “bending reality” or “making deliberately obtuse misinterpretations” but when I challenge you to show specifically where I have done any of these things what do we get from you…

Silence.

So I’ll ask again: Please describe the misinterpretation(s) I have made of the Convention. Please be specific.

Robertson said :

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.

True.

But the fact that you are ignoring (and that Scott Morrison is relying on others to be confused about) is that under the convention they have a legal right to enter Australia illegally.

Robertson said :

Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Ha! How can you right this stuff with a straight face?

Definition of doublespeak: “evasive, ambiguous, or high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse.”
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doublespeak

Here is an example of doublespeak:

Scott Morrison: “‘People who have entered Australia illegally by boat have illegally entered by boat,” Scott Morrison: “I’ve never said that it is illegal to claim asylum. That’s not what the term refers to.”

Do those statements make things clearer or not? I put it to you that those statements could reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour by asylum seekers arriving by boat. Such a conclusion would be false. Therefore it is Scott Morrison who is engaging in doublespeak

And worse he wants the Public Service to do it too.

There is a internationally used and well understood name for people who arrive in a country looking for protection; it is: “Asylum Seekers”

If Scott Morrison (or the Labor Party for that matter) wanted to “call a spade a spade” then that is what he would call them: Asylum Seekers.

Robertson said :

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from,…

Where does it say, in the Convention, that asylum seekers have to come directly from their home country to seek asylum? Please be specific. I’m obviously not as smart as you, so please spell it out for me.

Robertson said :

… preventing them from abusing the asylum system …

How have asylum seekers abused the asylum system? Please be specific. (I think it’s the other way around – Australia’s asylum system has abused them – how many examples of that would you like?)

Robertson said :

… and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

It is the government’s policy that means that asylum seekers arriving by boat (and air?) displace those from other resettlement programs. It’s not the asylum seekers fault – it’s the Government’s, they write the rules.

7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site