21 February 2014

Refugee Candlelight Vigil in Garema Place this Saturday 7:30PM

21 February 2014 | howeph

The Refugee Action Committee is organising a candlelight vigil this Saturday to mourn the death of an Iranian asylum seeker during recent protests at the Australian detention centre on Manus Island.

Reports are conflicted at this time as to how one person was killed and 77 others injured but sources suggest police and armed thugs went into the camp early Tuesday morning after days of escalating protests by asylum seekers over their continued detention and the appalling conditions at the camp.

Come along to show your support for those suffering under Operation Sovereign Borders.

RAC Website Event Page: here

Read the December report by Amnesty International on the “excessively cruel” detention centre on Manus Island here

Join the conversation

251

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

bigfeet6:50 am 12 Mar 14

Nylex_Clock said :

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident..

Its probably best for all concerned if you retire to your bunker until these terrifying times have passed. Two or three decades should just about do it.

Please, please tell us that there is no internet access in that bunker.

It’s funny how these lefties are all, “oh diversity! I love it!” right up until somebody starts to present diverse opinions that don’t agree with their ideology, at which point it’s goodbye Diversity, hello gulag.

Oh now I’m all confused. I’ve never been called a leftie before and really don’t know what to do.

Do I have to hand back my firearms and hunting licences? Should I get rid of my 4WD?

What do I do this Christmas Dinner? Do I have to sit there and agree with all the ‘human rights for criminals’ crap my lawyer brother-in-law goes on about? And do I now have agree with my aunt that being lazy is an actual disability and her loser son deserves more welfare?

My life has been turned upside down apparently just because I’m not terrified and paranoid.

Postalgeek9:57 pm 11 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

I wasn’t leaping to any conclusions at all.

Of course not. There were just “6 Australains murdered on this flight”.

dungfungus said :

But never mind that because it gave you a chance to leap to the defence of Islam, the “relgion” of peace.

Yeap, which is why I spoon-fed you details of draft Iraqi Shi’te marriage laws that I imagine most Australians, progressive and conservative, would find unacceptable.

Nylex_Clock8:19 pm 11 Mar 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

I live my life paranoia free. I’m happy and things are great. Maybe you should try it…or at least grow a brain.

That’s not a brain you’re sporting, it’s a pair of rose-tinted glasses.

If there’s one thing we can be 100% absolutely sure of, it’s that you me and 1 billion muslims aren’t going to be all joining hands and skipping off through the rainbow together to forge a new era of peace and cooperation and goodwill between all men. Never happen.
The future holds famines, wars, and population movements. And societies, cultures and civilisations being snuffed out. Same as it ever was.

Nylex_Clock8:12 pm 11 Mar 14

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident..

Its probably best for all concerned if you retire to your bunker until these terrifying times have passed. Two or three decades should just about do it.

Please, please tell us that there is no internet access in that bunker.

It’s funny how these lefties are all, “oh diversity! I love it!” right up until somebody starts to present diverse opinions that don’t agree with their ideology, at which point it’s goodbye Diversity, hello gulag.

Pork Hunt7:40 pm 11 Mar 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

It has been reported that the two tickets for the two men with stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man. It is also stated that they had tickets to fly on to Europe which means they didn’t need to get a Chinese visa in which case the Chinese may have detected their false passports.

Fortunately for us we’ve got Dung to leap to conclusions when authorities tediously insist on reserving judgement.

From Reuters:
“Investigators in Malaysia are also voicing scepticism that the airliner that disappeared early Saturday with 239 people on board was the target of an attack, US and European government sources close to the probe said.
Neither Malaysia’s Special Branch, the agency leading the investigation locally, nor spy agencies in the United States and Europe have ruled out the possibility that militants may have been involved in downing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.
But Malaysian authorities have indicated that the evidence so far does not strongly back an attack as a cause for the aircraft’s disappearance, and that mechanical or pilot problems could have led to the apparent crash, the US sources said. There is no evidence to suggest an act of terror,” said a European security source, who added that there was also “no explanation what’s happened to it or where it is%u2026.Even so, one US source said Malaysian authorities were leaning away from the theory that the plane was attacked.”

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-fake-passport-holders-were-iranian–report-20140311-hvh9k.html#ixzz2vcbb5153“

If you’re struggling for ammo, you could’ve gone with the draft Shi’ite Islamic marriage laws in Iraq and underlined the ugly side of sharia law, but that would’ve involved substantiated facts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-iraq-women-islam-idUSBREA270NR20140308

I wasn’t leaping to any conclusions at all.
If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident.
But never mind that because it gave you a chance to leap to the defence of Islam, the “relgion” of peace.

So, you are a paid member of the ADL?

I live my life paranoia free. I’m happy and things are great. Maybe you should try it…or at least grow a brain.

Do you mean this ADL http://www.adl.org/,?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:05 pm 11 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

It has been reported that the two tickets for the two men with stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man. It is also stated that they had tickets to fly on to Europe which means they didn’t need to get a Chinese visa in which case the Chinese may have detected their false passports.

Fortunately for us we’ve got Dung to leap to conclusions when authorities tediously insist on reserving judgement.

From Reuters:
“Investigators in Malaysia are also voicing scepticism that the airliner that disappeared early Saturday with 239 people on board was the target of an attack, US and European government sources close to the probe said.
Neither Malaysia’s Special Branch, the agency leading the investigation locally, nor spy agencies in the United States and Europe have ruled out the possibility that militants may have been involved in downing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.
But Malaysian authorities have indicated that the evidence so far does not strongly back an attack as a cause for the aircraft’s disappearance, and that mechanical or pilot problems could have led to the apparent crash, the US sources said. There is no evidence to suggest an act of terror,” said a European security source, who added that there was also “no explanation what’s happened to it or where it is%u2026.Even so, one US source said Malaysian authorities were leaning away from the theory that the plane was attacked.”

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-fake-passport-holders-were-iranian–report-20140311-hvh9k.html#ixzz2vcbb5153“

If you’re struggling for ammo, you could’ve gone with the draft Shi’ite Islamic marriage laws in Iraq and underlined the ugly side of sharia law, but that would’ve involved substantiated facts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-iraq-women-islam-idUSBREA270NR20140308

I wasn’t leaping to any conclusions at all.
If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident.
But never mind that because it gave you a chance to leap to the defence of Islam, the “relgion” of peace.

So, you are a paid member of the ADL?

I live my life paranoia free. I’m happy and things are great. Maybe you should try it…or at least grow a brain.

bigfeet5:48 pm 11 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident..

Its probably best for all concerned if you retire to your bunker until these terrifying times have passed. Two or three decades should just about do it.

Please, please tell us that there is no internet access in that bunker.

Nylex_Clock4:06 pm 11 Mar 14

Captain RAAF said :

With the blame for the loss of the Malaysian airlines almost certainly going to fall onto Al Qaeda and Iran, get ready for that country to be removed from existence and then….

I see, so you think the Israelis did it, huh?

Was there a WHITE VAN with DANCING ISRAELIS in the vicinity of the crash site?

dungfungus3:08 pm 11 Mar 14

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

It has been reported that the two tickets for the two men with stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man. It is also stated that they had tickets to fly on to Europe which means they didn’t need to get a Chinese visa in which case the Chinese may have detected their false passports.

Fortunately for us we’ve got Dung to leap to conclusions when authorities tediously insist on reserving judgement.

From Reuters:
“Investigators in Malaysia are also voicing scepticism that the airliner that disappeared early Saturday with 239 people on board was the target of an attack, US and European government sources close to the probe said.
Neither Malaysia’s Special Branch, the agency leading the investigation locally, nor spy agencies in the United States and Europe have ruled out the possibility that militants may have been involved in downing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.
But Malaysian authorities have indicated that the evidence so far does not strongly back an attack as a cause for the aircraft’s disappearance, and that mechanical or pilot problems could have led to the apparent crash, the US sources said. There is no evidence to suggest an act of terror,” said a European security source, who added that there was also “no explanation what’s happened to it or where it is%u2026.Even so, one US source said Malaysian authorities were leaning away from the theory that the plane was attacked.”

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-fake-passport-holders-were-iranian–report-20140311-hvh9k.html#ixzz2vcbb5153“

If you’re struggling for ammo, you could’ve gone with the draft Shi’ite Islamic marriage laws in Iraq and underlined the ugly side of sharia law, but that would’ve involved substantiated facts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-iraq-women-islam-idUSBREA270NR20140308

I wasn’t leaping to any conclusions at all.
If you read the previous post you would see that I was responding to the question about my paranoia levels which are highly elevated following this (yet to be explained) incident.
But never mind that because it gave you a chance to leap to the defence of Islam, the “relgion” of peace.

Postalgeek2:36 pm 11 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

It has been reported that the two tickets for the two men with stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man. It is also stated that they had tickets to fly on to Europe which means they didn’t need to get a Chinese visa in which case the Chinese may have detected their false passports.

Fortunately for us we’ve got Dung to leap to conclusions when authorities tediously insist on reserving judgement.

From Reuters:
“Investigators in Malaysia are also voicing scepticism that the airliner that disappeared early Saturday with 239 people on board was the target of an attack, US and European government sources close to the probe said.
Neither Malaysia’s Special Branch, the agency leading the investigation locally, nor spy agencies in the United States and Europe have ruled out the possibility that militants may have been involved in downing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.
But Malaysian authorities have indicated that the evidence so far does not strongly back an attack as a cause for the aircraft’s disappearance, and that mechanical or pilot problems could have led to the apparent crash, the US sources said. There is no evidence to suggest an act of terror,” said a European security source, who added that there was also “no explanation what’s happened to it or where it is%u2026.Even so, one US source said Malaysian authorities were leaning away from the theory that the plane was attacked.”

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-fake-passport-holders-were-iranian–report-20140311-hvh9k.html#ixzz2vcbb5153“

If you’re struggling for ammo, you could’ve gone with the draft Shi’ite Islamic marriage laws in Iraq and underlined the ugly side of sharia law, but that would’ve involved substantiated facts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-iraq-women-islam-idUSBREA270NR20140308

dungfungus9:31 am 11 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

LOL

How paranoid and small minded are you?

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

It has been reported that the two tickets for the two men with stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man. It is also stated that they had tickets to fly on to Europe which means they didn’t need to get a Chinese visa in which case the Chinese may have detected their false passports.

dungfungus11:03 am 10 Mar 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

LOL

How paranoid and small minded are you?

Following revelations about the two people with stolen passports sitting together on the ill-fated Malaysian Ailines flight and the absence of security screening for explosives, I am feeling a little more paranoid.
There were 6 Australains murdered on this flight.
Are you starting to see the light now?

NoImRight9:17 am 06 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

BelcoMan said :

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

Given the number of ‘Christian” armies invading non- Christian countries in recent times evidence seems to be to the contrary.

You mean armies from Christian countries I think and I would like to know which “invasions” you are referring to. There have been regional military interventions mainly at the behest of the UN but “invasion” is the first move in colonisation and apart from Islamists counties in Afica invading neighbouring Christian countries I don’t believe any of the (unnamed) invading armies you are referring to have plans to stay in the countries they have made a military presence in.
Global Islamisation is happening through migration and propogation in the host country so that sheer weight of numbers will take over. Most European countries (thanks to the politically correct forward thinkers running the EU) have now made public recording of someone’s ethnicity, culture or religion optional when welfare or medical treatment is involved and it is no longer asked for in a population census. The outcome is that no one knows how many of any of the aforementioned categories are in any country so the takover will happen sooner rather than later.
To the best of my recollection, in the last Australian ABS census disclosing ethnicity, culture or religion (unless you were an indigenous person) was optional so we “are also in the dark”.
Some of you contributors thing climate change is a problem. You should, as a contingency, familiarise youselves with the current Islamic take on climate change because that will become the norm.

Hear Hear. It is those that kneel down to the ideology of the anti Muslim/Christian sentiment that fail to realise where the entire situations is manageable through a cohesive forward thinking strategy that addresses the key concerns of all of the groups

I think you have posted your comment on the wrong thread. You meant to make a comment about legalising marijuana, right?

That one I’ll give. Well played. 🙂

dungfungus9:11 pm 05 Mar 14

BelcoMan said :

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

Given the number of ‘Christian” armies invading non- Christian countries in recent times evidence seems to be to the contrary.

You mean armies from Christian countries I think and I would like to know which “invasions” you are referring to. There have been regional military interventions mainly at the behest of the UN but “invasion” is the first move in colonisation and apart from Islamists counties in Afica invading neighbouring Christian countries I don’t believe any of the (unnamed) invading armies you are referring to have plans to stay in the countries they have made a military presence in.
Global Islamisation is happening through migration and propogation in the host country so that sheer weight of numbers will take over. Most European countries (thanks to the politically correct forward thinkers running the EU) have now made public recording of someone’s ethnicity, culture or religion optional when welfare or medical treatment is involved and it is no longer asked for in a population census. The outcome is that no one knows how many of any of the aforementioned categories are in any country so the takover will happen sooner rather than later.
To the best of my recollection, in the last Australian ABS census disclosing ethnicity, culture or religion (unless you were an indigenous person) was optional so we “are also in the dark”.
Some of you contributors thing climate change is a problem. You should, as a contingency, familiarise youselves with the current Islamic take on climate change because that will become the norm.

Hear Hear. It is those that kneel down to the ideology of the anti Muslim/Christian sentiment that fail to realise where the entire situations is manageable through a cohesive forward thinking strategy that addresses the key concerns of all of the groups

I think you have posted your comment on the wrong thread. You meant to make a comment about legalising marijuana, right?

BelcoMan4:04 pm 05 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

Given the number of ‘Christian” armies invading non- Christian countries in recent times evidence seems to be to the contrary.

You mean armies from Christian countries I think and I would like to know which “invasions” you are referring to. There have been regional military interventions mainly at the behest of the UN but “invasion” is the first move in colonisation and apart from Islamists counties in Afica invading neighbouring Christian countries I don’t believe any of the (unnamed) invading armies you are referring to have plans to stay in the countries they have made a military presence in.
Global Islamisation is happening through migration and propogation in the host country so that sheer weight of numbers will take over. Most European countries (thanks to the politically correct forward thinkers running the EU) have now made public recording of someone’s ethnicity, culture or religion optional when welfare or medical treatment is involved and it is no longer asked for in a population census. The outcome is that no one knows how many of any of the aforementioned categories are in any country so the takover will happen sooner rather than later.
To the best of my recollection, in the last Australian ABS census disclosing ethnicity, culture or religion (unless you were an indigenous person) was optional so we “are also in the dark”.
Some of you contributors thing climate change is a problem. You should, as a contingency, familiarise youselves with the current Islamic take on climate change because that will become the norm.

Hear Hear. It is those that kneel down to the ideology of the anti Muslim/Christian sentiment that fail to realise where the entire situations is manageable through a cohesive forward thinking strategy that addresses the key concerns of all of the groups

dungfungus1:23 pm 05 Mar 14

NoImRight said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

Given the number of ‘Christian” armies invading non- Christian countries in recent times evidence seems to be to the contrary.

You mean armies from Christian countries I think and I would like to know which “invasions” you are referring to. There have been regional military interventions mainly at the behest of the UN but “invasion” is the first move in colonisation and apart from Islamists counties in Afica invading neighbouring Christian countries I don’t believe any of the (unnamed) invading armies you are referring to have plans to stay in the countries they have made a military presence in.
Global Islamisation is happening through migration and propogation in the host country so that sheer weight of numbers will take over. Most European countries (thanks to the politically correct forward thinkers running the EU) have now made public recording of someone’s ethnicity, culture or religion optional when welfare or medical treatment is involved and it is no longer asked for in a population census. The outcome is that no one knows how many of any of the aforementioned categories are in any country so the takover will happen sooner rather than later.
To the best of my recollection, in the last Australian ABS census disclosing ethnicity, culture or religion (unless you were an indigenous person) was optional so we “are also in the dark”.
Some of you contributors thing climate change is a problem. You should, as a contingency, familiarise youselves with the current Islamic take on climate change because that will become the norm.

NoImRight11:59 am 05 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

Given the number of ‘Christian” armies invading non- Christian countries in recent times evidence seems to be to the contrary.

dungfungus9:25 am 05 Mar 14

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

If true, is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religions persecution, period?

Anyone who steps on an airliner these days could be murdered by Islamic terrorists. Remember the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber and the plot that was foiled at the 11th hour to blow up 12 airliners over the Atlantic? How many terrorists are “sleepers” with stolen ground to air missiles all over the Western world? Anyone who is a Westener is a chance to be murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

That’s interesting, let’s discuss that.

After you answer my question rather than hijack the flow.

In case you somehow missed it: Is this a case for an end to unreasonable persecuting Christians, or an end to unreasonable religious persecution, period?

Christians are not the ones that are aspiring for world domination.

NoImRight9:40 am 04 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Gee. Given your obvious open mind and welcoming manner Im surprised you didnt get on well with your neighbours. Perplexing.

Awesome post though. About the only thing you didnt suggest was they are all pedos as well. Maybe next time you can squeeze that into your thought stream? If you say it enough it becomes true.

Actually, if a pedo is a 24 yo maths student from a Muslim country in the middle east who has sex with a 12 year old “bride” married by an Imam in Sydney with permission from the girl’s father we can’t say they are all pedos. But hey, that’s their culure right? None of our business.

Have a look at the “ethnicity” of the people being accused in the Commissions investigating the Catholic Church. Plus the Boys and Girls Homes in Australia. Glass houses etc…..

dungfungus6:36 am 04 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Gee. Given your obvious open mind and welcoming manner Im surprised you didnt get on well with your neighbours. Perplexing.

Awesome post though. About the only thing you didnt suggest was they are all pedos as well. Maybe next time you can squeeze that into your thought stream? If you say it enough it becomes true.

Actually, if a pedo is a 24 yo maths student from a Muslim country in the middle east who has sex with a 12 year old “bride” married by an Imam in Sydney with permission from the girl’s father we can’t say they are all pedos. But hey, that’s their culure right? None of our business.

I guess more than one of them are pedos, actually.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hotline-plan-to-help-hidden-child-brides-in-sydney-20140301-33sqm.html

dungfungus6:23 pm 03 Mar 14

NoImRight said :

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Gee. Given your obvious open mind and welcoming manner Im surprised you didnt get on well with your neighbours. Perplexing.

Awesome post though. About the only thing you didnt suggest was they are all pedos as well. Maybe next time you can squeeze that into your thought stream? If you say it enough it becomes true.

Actually, if a pedo is a 24 yo maths student from a Muslim country in the middle east who has sex with a 12 year old “bride” married by an Imam in Sydney with permission from the girl’s father we can’t say they are all pedos. But hey, that’s their culure right? None of our business.

NoImRight4:57 pm 03 Mar 14

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Gee. Given your obvious open mind and welcoming manner Im surprised you didnt get on well with your neighbours. Perplexing.

Awesome post though. About the only thing you didnt suggest was they are all pedos as well. Maybe next time you can squeeze that into your thought stream? If you say it enough it becomes true.

dungfungus12:16 pm 03 Mar 14

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Codders111 said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

I’m bowing out. It’s clear that this discussion has transcended reason. I’m actually quite disappointed to have riotact members whose posts I’ve enjoyed (on other topics) outed as bigots.

Anyway, one final comment. Painting Christianity as the most persecuted religion in the world is utterly ridiculous. Try Falun Gong, Buddhism (in Tibet and Burma), Hinduism (in northern India), Judaism, Muslims (in Palestine, the Caucasus, India, and most of the West), or probably any other major religion you can think of. It’s no exaggeration to say Christians set the global agenda – how do you reconcile this with your claims of widespread persecution?

Please don’t post a link citing dodgy research from some conservative/Christian news site in response. They prove nothing. If you can find a credible, objective and well-researched academic piece that identifies Christianity as the world’s most persecuted religion I’d read it with interest.

This very issue was discussed on ABC radio not long ago. Are you suggesting that the ABC is “a conservative/Christian news site”.
Australia is part of the Westen world so pray tell us how, when & where we have been persecuting Muslims?

Our support for Israel amounts to complicity in the persecution some of them suffer.

So, by us supporting Israel makes us persecute Muslims in Australia by proxy?
Absolute tosh.

Nylex_Clock10:30 am 03 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Codders111 said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

I’m bowing out. It’s clear that this discussion has transcended reason. I’m actually quite disappointed to have riotact members whose posts I’ve enjoyed (on other topics) outed as bigots.

Anyway, one final comment. Painting Christianity as the most persecuted religion in the world is utterly ridiculous. Try Falun Gong, Buddhism (in Tibet and Burma), Hinduism (in northern India), Judaism, Muslims (in Palestine, the Caucasus, India, and most of the West), or probably any other major religion you can think of. It’s no exaggeration to say Christians set the global agenda – how do you reconcile this with your claims of widespread persecution?

Please don’t post a link citing dodgy research from some conservative/Christian news site in response. They prove nothing. If you can find a credible, objective and well-researched academic piece that identifies Christianity as the world’s most persecuted religion I’d read it with interest.

This very issue was discussed on ABC radio not long ago. Are you suggesting that the ABC is “a conservative/Christian news site”.
Australia is part of the Westen world so pray tell us how, when & where we have been persecuting Muslims?

Our support for Israel amounts to complicity in the persecution some of them suffer.

dungfungus9:47 am 03 Mar 14

Codders111 said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

I’m bowing out. It’s clear that this discussion has transcended reason. I’m actually quite disappointed to have riotact members whose posts I’ve enjoyed (on other topics) outed as bigots.

Anyway, one final comment. Painting Christianity as the most persecuted religion in the world is utterly ridiculous. Try Falun Gong, Buddhism (in Tibet and Burma), Hinduism (in northern India), Judaism, Muslims (in Palestine, the Caucasus, India, and most of the West), or probably any other major religion you can think of. It’s no exaggeration to say Christians set the global agenda – how do you reconcile this with your claims of widespread persecution?

Please don’t post a link citing dodgy research from some conservative/Christian news site in response. They prove nothing. If you can find a credible, objective and well-researched academic piece that identifies Christianity as the world’s most persecuted religion I’d read it with interest.

This very issue was discussed on ABC radio not long ago. Are you suggesting that the ABC is “a conservative/Christian news site”.
Australia is part of the Westen world so pray tell us how, when & where we have been persecuting Muslims?

Codders1116:50 pm 02 Mar 14

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

I know how to reassure him: just point him to the country, overwhelmed by muslim immigration, where no mass-muders of non-muslims ensued, no forcible conversions, and no persecution of the non-muslim minority.

Also, share with him the long list of countries where there is a sizeable muslim minority population and where everybody lives in peace and there are never any muslim atrocities against their non-muslim neighbours.

You can use these two demonstrations to show him how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

Additionally, you can point him to the global muslim reaction to a few satirical cartoons as a demonstration of how we have nothing to fear from muslims because they respect free speech and shy away from violence at all times.

We can laugh at our extremist Christians in Australian suburbia, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. No prizes for guessing which religion is persecuting them.

I’m bowing out. It’s clear that this discussion has transcended reason. I’m actually quite disappointed to have riotact members whose posts I’ve enjoyed (on other topics) outed as bigots.

Anyway, one final comment. Painting Christianity as the most persecuted religion in the world is utterly ridiculous. Try Falun Gong, Buddhism (in Tibet and Burma), Hinduism (in northern India), Judaism, Muslims (in Palestine, the Caucasus, India, and most of the West), or probably any other major religion you can think of. It’s no exaggeration to say Christians set the global agenda – how do you reconcile this with your claims of widespread persecution?

Please don’t post a link citing dodgy research from some conservative/Christian news site in response. They prove nothing. If you can find a credible, objective and well-researched academic piece that identifies Christianity as the world’s most persecuted religion I’d read it with interest.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:14 pm 01 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Exactly.
We can’t be accused of Islamophobia when they are trying to kill us.

Has there been a attempt on your life? Can you post for me the court documents or any evidence you forwarded to the police?

Grow up clown.
How quickly we forget the 88 Australians murdered by Islamists in Bali as well as the others in 9/11.

You seem to have a massive problem with answering basic questions.

Can you please post evidence of the entirety of Muslims trying to murder you?

dungfungus5:39 pm 01 Mar 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Exactly.
We can’t be accused of Islamophobia when they are trying to kill us.

Has there been a attempt on your life? Can you post for me the court documents or any evidence you forwarded to the police?

Grow up clown.
How quickly we forget the 88 Australians murdered by Islamists in Bali as well as the others in 9/11.

Codders1114:09 pm 01 Mar 14

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Lord’s Resistance Army? Anders Brevik? Orange Volunteers? Ku Klux Klan? I could go on. Extremists come in all faiths.

More importantly, extremists represent a tiny minority of their particular faith. It’s extremely unfair to tar ’em all with the same brush.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:32 pm 01 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Exactly.
We can’t be accused of Islamophobia when they are trying to kill us.

Has there been a attempt on your life? Can you post for me the court documents or any evidence you forwarded to the police?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:30 pm 01 Mar 14

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Ummm, you realise we are currently involved in the war on Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, right?

dungfungus2:35 pm 01 Mar 14

bearlikesbeer said :

nazasaurus said :

miz said :

The only thing I agree with the current fed govt on (and indeed the opposition – it is bipartisan policy) is to stop the black market for back door immigration which results in people drowning at sea. Passengers on people smuggling vessels would naturally be very angry on arrival given that they were severely ripped off and conned by people smugglers. They would in fact have been better off arriving by plane, with their papers, then claiming asylum.
It is sad that someone (ONE person) has died on Manus but I think this Refugee Action Committee has jumped the gun. We don’t know the circs of the man’s death. The vigil seems a bit ghoulish, seeking media interest in this situation.
BTW Australian immigration detention can clearly be distinguished from Nazi concentration camps. Detained persons are free to return to their homelands (e.g. Iran) at any time, or indeed Indonesia through which they travelled, and are not detained because of their race, religion, creed or sexual preference.
Australia is a generous country that gladly accepts refugees, through proper processes. But we are not a country that will tolerate attempts to scam and bribe us. It offends my sense of fair go to let people who push in get a place before the people who have done the right thing. You have to draw the line somewhere.

youre wrong. They (Iranians) are not free to go back to their country. Iran refuses re-entry to returnees.

“One of the mourners was 23-year-old Abuozar Heydari, who volunteered last year to be repatriated to Iran after 16 days on Manus Island.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/someones-son-someones-brother-reza-barati-an-architect-who-had-hopes-for-a-better-life-20140228-33r4n.html#ixzz2ufNgsDIP

Relatives of the “Iranian” man who died in the riot were on ABC TV last night saying that the deceased was actually a Kurd from Northern Iraq who had sought asylum in Iran. They said he had left Iran because the government there was persecuting Kurds.
Two weeks ago the Iranian ambassador to Australia (or their foreign minister) was complaining to Australian authorities that “one of their citizens” had died because of inhumane treatment in the Manus Island detention centre and Australia was responsible for the death of an Iranian citizen.
So, draw your own conclusions.
There are also stories that the meek and mild aspiring architect that was killed was actually one of the “Iranians” on Manus who are built like Don Athaldo. This group was reportedly the ones that started the riot and they were taunting the guards with threats that they would rape their wives, daughters, mothers etc.
Only a fool with a death wish would say those sort of things to a guard so what goes round comes round.

dungfungus2:21 pm 01 Mar 14

Masquara said :

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Exactly.
We can’t be accused of Islamophobia when they are trying to kill us.

Masquara1:11 pm 01 Mar 14

Deckard said :

The same thing was said after ww2 that the ‘wogs’ from a war torn Europe were bringing their dodgy ways to end our way of life. Next it was the Vietnamese coming here after the Vietnam war …

Yes there are muslims who don’t tolerate other people and who want people to live under their religion. But there are also white Australian bigots, like in the posts above who believe the same thing. In fact every ‘culture’ has them. I just wish you’d all move to an island together where you can deafen yourselves with your bulls… for the rest of your lives while you let the rest of us, who can get along together, live in peace.

But the bigots won’t listen. They like to be angry and spread their hate on websites, be they white, black, christian, buddhist, muslim, or whatever.

First of all, the Vietnam War was something Australia was involved in. So of course we should have taken in refugees. And these were boat people who came directly from Vietnam, and had not flown into a previous country and then destroyed identity documents. I think the story differs somewhat from the present-day boat arrival industry circumstances.

Secondly, there is unfortunately a huge gap between Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. In terms of outcomes by death and terror. “White Australian bigotry” exists, sure, and unfortunately we allowed a lot of IRA terrorists into the country, but they have simply lain low. They aren’t blowing people up any more or in this country. Australian Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are actively sympathising with terrorist organisations, fighting in Syria, and otherwise making mischief throughout the world. Acid in schoolgirls’ faces. Burning African schoolboys to death. Muslim extremism is our current world sickness. That is where our attention needs to be. Sure, there will be waves of dangerous terror from other nationalities in future. But name me a non-Muslim terrorist organisation causing mayhem, other than in small pockets such as Myanmar.
I have no truck with the Russell Brand “Lee Rigby’s killers were just disaffected and troubled young men” bullshit. Apologists for Muslim terrorism are making it worse.

Queen_of_the_Bun9:08 am 01 Mar 14

nazasaurus said :

miz said :

The only thing I agree with the current fed govt on (and indeed the opposition – it is bipartisan policy) is to stop the black market for back door immigration which results in people drowning at sea. Passengers on people smuggling vessels would naturally be very angry on arrival given that they were severely ripped off and conned by people smugglers. They would in fact have been better off arriving by plane, with their papers, then claiming asylum.
It is sad that someone (ONE person) has died on Manus but I think this Refugee Action Committee has jumped the gun. We don’t know the circs of the man’s death. The vigil seems a bit ghoulish, seeking media interest in this situation.
BTW Australian immigration detention can clearly be distinguished from Nazi concentration camps. Detained persons are free to return to their homelands (e.g. Iran) at any time, or indeed Indonesia through which they travelled, and are not detained because of their race, religion, creed or sexual preference.
Australia is a generous country that gladly accepts refugees, through proper processes. But we are not a country that will tolerate attempts to scam and bribe us. It offends my sense of fair go to let people who push in get a place before the people who have done the right thing. You have to draw the line somewhere.

youre wrong. They (Iranians) are not free to go back to their country. Iran refuses re-entry to returnees.

You’re partially wrong on policy (totally wrong on punctuation). Iran refuses re-entry to involuntary returnees. Eg if an Iranian national here on a regular visa was convicted and jailed for a crime (embezzlement, high range PCA, anything) and we tried to deport him/her at the end of their sentence but they refused, we would be unable to send them back to Iran.

If an asylum seeker decides that it would be better to take their chances back home in Iran than PNG or Manus, and asks to return voluntarily, Iran will accept them.

It’s not a perfect system, but with an estimated 26.4 million internally displaced people around the globe, how many can Australia realistically help? Interestingly, the UNHCR says the three countries with the biggest populations of internally displaced people are Colombia, Iraq and South Sudan.

Holden Caulfield11:47 am 28 Feb 14

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Holy shit!

dungfungus11:13 am 28 Feb 14

bundah said :

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Given what has reportedly occurred in various parts of Europe there is an element of truth in what you say. Religion has much to answer for and the sheep are in plague proportions so the future looks gloomy…

We are not just talking about “religion” – we are talking about an oppressive way of life under Islam.
There are no separation of powers as we know in a democracy with all decision making being vested with one caliph having the first (and last) word on everything.

bundah9:35 am 28 Feb 14

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Given what has reportedly occurred in various parts of Europe there is an element of truth in what you say. Religion has much to answer for and the sheep are in plague proportions so the future looks gloomy…

dungfungus9:18 am 28 Feb 14

Elf said :

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

I agree 100% with your post. We will be now abused by the usual contributors and branded as Islamaphobists etc. These people have never taken a trip to Europe to see what has happened there so they could be excused for being denialists.
My advice to the denialists is to pick up a few history books and read about what happened in Spain in the 1400s.

Elf6:51 pm 27 Feb 14

The real point here is how do we want Australia to be left for our children.

Just like we shouldn’t cut down every tree and we should address climate change (if it’s not crap), we have a duty to leave Australia to our children in a good shape.

Sadly bringing in middle eastern people who haven’t blended into society mainly because their constricted by some medieval beliefs is the wrong way to go. There is a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators who maintain control using barbaric means, because that is how you keep them under control. Out here the majority (not all) have not made any useful contribution to our country. They seem to want to be separate and try to turn our country into the country they left supposably for a better life.

Have a look at the UK or France and what has happened to their main cities with no go areas for normal people. Have a look at how Iraq, Libya and even Syria are going with democracy introduced in two and a weakened leader in the other. Theyre killing each other? Shites v Sunni’s v Christians v anybody they don’t like.

Let’s leave them over there. All refugee immigrants to this country up until recently blended in and added to our culture. Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese to name a few all fled countriesfor legit reasons and happily adopted our culture. Middle Eastern people unfortunately for them are a bit backward and are a danger to our way of life. If we must have Muslims then Asian Muslims would be preferable, at least they are a bit more civilised. Even the Indonesians whose are majority Muslim want then out of their country which is why they let them depart to here.

If we must take Boat people, then the Tamil Sri Lankins have a better claim at being Refugees after their civil war. They also make better Australian citizens than the Middle Eastern lot.

It was interesting that when Rudd or Gillard was resettling the Refo’s into society and offered money to families who would host these people, only one family took it up. It seems the bleeding hearts didn’t want them living with them either. No doubt a few would have had wife’s and daughters they didn’t want to risk. Yes I lived in Bass Hill many years ago sandwiched between 2 families of about 10 each and I can tell you it was the most uncomfortable 6 months of my life. It was like living in a different country.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd11:56 am 27 Feb 14

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

Codders111 said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Codders111 said :

If you’re referring to the article 31 phrase “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”, Indonesia falls into this category because it’s not a party to the Refugee Convention.

False. It does no such thing.
Unless a refugee is in danger in Indonesia, then that refugee’s decision to enter Australia illegally is a direct contravention of the refugee’s responsibilities as outlined in the the convention.

What we need in this country is legislation that sets down in black and white that asylum shoppers are not valid refugees in order to stop the lawyers’ picnic that this 60-year-old convention has created by its lack of applicability to the modern world we live in.

Because Indonesia hasn’t signed the convention they’re in danger of being refouled to the original place of persecution. I’d say this qualifies.

The principle of non refoulment is actually already recognised in international law. Being a non signatory nation to the convention doesn’t make it any less illegal.

Chewy14 is correct. And I am not aware of any evidence that asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia are under threat of refoulment.

Asylum seekers in Indonesia are however subject to arbitrary arrest, no rights to education, healthcare or social security and are not permitted to work. Therefore Codders111 is also correct. The asylum seekers are coming directly from a territory where their freedom was threatened.

Of course under Australia’s increasingly authoritarian, nationalistic, militarist, right-wing (a.k.a. fascist) asylum seeker policies of deterrence, promoted by the Coalition and Labor, asylum seekers are guaranteed indefinite, isolated detention. A system that is purposefully designed to destroy hope.

Is anyone one seriously arguing that we are not breaching Human Rights and the Refugee Convention? What has happened to my country?

It has turned into a gigantic shithole that all citizens should be ashamed of.

Mysteryman10:49 am 27 Feb 14

howeph said :

Codders111 said :

Mysteryman said :

There is a retroactivity clause in the VCLT (article 4) that intends for it not to be retroactive to conventions concluded before the entry into force of the VCLT:

the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

The Refugee Convention falls into that category.

I wasn’t aware of the retroactivity clause. Good pickup.

Mysteryman didn’t quote the whole of Article 4. It’s only one sentence, why not quote the whole thing?:

“Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.”

O.k. It’s a confusing sentence – gotta love those lawyers – so I can see why Mysteryman wanted to simplify it. And to be honest, I don’t think that I really understand what it is saying. However, here is what I can make of it:

Without Prejudice means without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges or without making a ruling one way or the other.

So I think the article is making the point that a lot of the VCLT is the codification of existing international law (other international conventions, international custom and general principles of law) under which existing treaties have been operating. The way that the VCLT is to be applied to those existing treaties is “without prejudice”. That is, contrary to Mysteryman’s assertion, the VCLT does apply to existing treaties, but the extent that they are applicable if disputed needs to be ruled upon on a case by case basis.

Codders111 was referring to articles 26:

“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

and 27:

“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

To say that they don’t apply to the Refugee Convention you would have to show that under international law prior to the the VCLT such concepts didn’t apply generally; or specifically to the Refugee convention. Good luck with that.

Actually I simplified it because most of the commentaries I read on the issue seemed to conclude that the retroactivity clause applied in the manner I suggested it did.

howeph10:33 am 27 Feb 14

Codders111 said :

Mysteryman said :

There is a retroactivity clause in the VCLT (article 4) that intends for it not to be retroactive to conventions concluded before the entry into force of the VCLT:

the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

The Refugee Convention falls into that category.

I wasn’t aware of the retroactivity clause. Good pickup.

Mysteryman didn’t quote the whole of Article 4. It’s only one sentence, why not quote the whole thing?:

“Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.”

O.k. It’s a confusing sentence – gotta love those lawyers – so I can see why Mysteryman wanted to simplify it. And to be honest, I don’t think that I really understand what it is saying. However, here is what I can make of it:

Without Prejudice means without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges or without making a ruling one way or the other.

So I think the article is making the point that a lot of the VCLT is the codification of existing international law (other international conventions, international custom and general principles of law) under which existing treaties have been operating. The way that the VCLT is to be applied to those existing treaties is “without prejudice”. That is, contrary to Mysteryman’s assertion, the VCLT does apply to existing treaties, but the extent that they are applicable if disputed needs to be ruled upon on a case by case basis.

Codders111 was referring to articles 26:

“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

and 27:

“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

To say that they don’t apply to the Refugee Convention you would have to show that under international law prior to the the VCLT such concepts didn’t apply generally; or specifically to the Refugee convention. Good luck with that.

Codders11112:17 pm 26 Feb 14

Mysteryman said :

Codders111 said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

Whatever the Migration Act says, it’s really a moot point. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention stipulates that refugees should not be punished for entering countries illegally. Australia’s mandatory detention policy falls squarely under this prohibition.

READ THE CONVENTION. There are conditions that must be met for unlawful non-citizens to avoid punishment. They are not being met and so Australia has the right to treat them according to our Migration Act.

The other issue you seem to forget is that the convention is an agreement, not a law. It does not supersede the Migration Act.

It’s not a case of “hur dur the convention says we have to take them the migration act doesn’t matter.”

I’ve read it. What conditions are you referring to? Such vague statements are meaningless.

If you’re referring to the refugee definition in article 1A(2), refugee status is declaratory in nature (widely established – check out paragraph 5 at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68cc04.html). This means asylum seekers should be treated as refugees UNTIL it is proven otherwise. Australia breaches article 31 well before any such determination is made.

If you’re referring to the article 31 phrase “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”, Indonesia falls into this category because it’s not a party to the Refugee Convention.

The convention is a treaty, not an ‘agreement’. As a treaty to which Australia is a party, it is binding and should be performed in good faith (VCLT article 26). It’s also worth noting that parties to a treaty can’t use domestic law (like the Migration Act) to justify the failure to perform that treaty (VCLT article 27).

Mysteryman7:59 am 26 Feb 14

Codders111 said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

Whatever the Migration Act says, it’s really a moot point. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention stipulates that refugees should not be punished for entering countries illegally. Australia’s mandatory detention policy falls squarely under this prohibition.

READ THE CONVENTION. There are conditions that must be met for unlawful non-citizens to avoid punishment. They are not being met and so Australia has the right to treat them according to our Migration Act.

The other issue you seem to forget is that the convention is an agreement, not a law. It does not supersede the Migration Act.

It’s not a case of “hur dur the convention says we have to take them the migration act doesn’t matter.”

chewy148:02 pm 25 Feb 14

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

Not this again.

Yes this again.

chewy14 said :

It IS an open border policy by any other name.

They’ve set a number of 30 000? Fine. But what they don’t say is what happens to asylum seeker number 30 001? What is to stop them from getting on a boat?

They want to create a massive incentive to get to Indonesia, yet don’t have a plan of what to do if their set ‘limit’ is ever breached. If the limit is unenforceable then it becomes meaningless.

Nothing short of withdrawing from the convention is going to “stop” them from getting on a boat. BUT, under the Greens policy, getting on a boat is not their only option.

The Greens policies establishes the mythical “queue”. It creates a safe, genuine and practical process to follow for asylum seekers.

It provides asylum seekers with an alternative, instead of being forced to risk their lives with people smugglers.

What happens when the quoter is full for the month? They will wait in the queue because they can see that the queue is moving. Why would you risk your life and savings when there is a safe and functioning alternative?

chewy14 said :

And that’s not even starting on the equity issue of treating refugees who have the means to get to Indonesia better than those who don’t. An issue that we’ve been over many times before.

Unlike Labor and the Coalition’s policies, under the Greens policy those resettled from on-shore or from the region, do not displace those being resettled from other UNHCR camps around the world. It just explicitly recognises that we have an obligation, ethically and under the treaty, to help those who arrive on our door step seeking help.

How is that inequitable? How indeed is it not consistent with conservative values?

chewy14 said :

The Greens policy will most likely result in just as many (most likely more) people being persecuted globally, they will just be able to wipe their hands of it because the persecution will be overseas in far flung countries and refugee camps. They get to keep their warm and fuzzy feelings whilst more people die.

Please explain?

I see it the opposite way around.

It is the Labor/Liberal party’s policy of deterrence, off shore camps, denial of courts and media blackout which is trying to push the issue away out of sight and out of mind in the hope that we will all go on with our healthy, wealthy, pleasant, safe lives in blissful, wilful ignorance.

OK,
Lets analyse the Greens position as you’ve presented above.

Firstly, the Greens will decouple the onshore (or indo/regional) program to the offshore refugee program. So they are going to accept a certain number of refugees from overseas refugee camps, no matter how many they take from Indonesia.

So, as I said, the 30000 figure is meaningless. It either:

A) ignores the number taken from overseas or

B) assumes that the total will be less than 30000 anyway. Or

C) assumes that the number above 30000 in Indonesia will patiently wait there because…..um actually no, there’s nothing keeping them from waiting there. A boat journey almost certainly guarantees immediate entry and community processing. If you’ve got the money, why would you wait?

I would disagree with the reasoning behind all of these assumptions, unless you think they don’t apply. If so, why?

You’re also assuming that each refugee is equally deserving of our aid which I would dispute. Some refugees are clearly at more risk of persecution than others. What happens when the amount waiting in Indonesia significantly exceeds the quota. Do you take those most in need first (pushing others back in the queue) or is it first come, first served?

Of course if you start pushing people back in the queue, you increase the likelihood of boat journeys, if you take first there in order, you increase the likelihood of persecution. Either way it’s bad.

Now, lets look a bit deeper into the equity issue and the claim that this policy would destroy the people smugglers business model.

I would disagree with this assertion, it would simply change their model from a “Boat to Australia” service to a “travel to Indonesia” service. You’re simply pushing the problem onto Indonesia or the region by creating a massive incentive to get to the regional processing centres. So, once again, those with money and the means to get to Indonesia will be treated preferentially to those who don’t have those means.

This goes against one of the fundamental principles of the Greens stated policy that socioeconomic status should not be an advantage. Their policy clearly makes being richer an advantage.

I think the Greens supporters need to understand that there isn’t unlimited resources to help these people. With over one million refugees and forty two million displaced people in the world we simply can’t live in their utopia where everyone in need can be helped. So because of this we have to set a limit, we have to help those most in need first and we shouldn’t advantage anyone because they happen to have money.

The greens policy clearly fails because of that and the other reasons I’ve given above. It’s not based in reality and doesn’t achieve their own stated goals.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:22 pm 25 Feb 14

bundah said :

howeph said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

For the benefit of Grrr, and Voytek3, so that you know who you’re dealing with:

Stormfront Org is actually the RiotACT user, otherwise known as DUB: http://the-riotact.com/DUB

DUB changed his/her name after being repeatedly caught out lying to the RiotACT community (see Comment #28 on this thread http://the-riotact.com/many-more-turn-out-for-pro-wind-rally/107648 and Comment #10 http://the-riotact.com/diy-wotz-on-guide-for-the-weekend-of-the-26th-of-july-2013/110530#comment-490359)

S/he has made similar unfounded accusations on this thread too:

Stormfront Org said :

There wasn’t many beggars in Civic on Sunday, they probably got paid enough to attend “vigil” service.

Why is it that so many supporters of the the deterrence policy feel that they need to lie about themselves in order to bolster their position?

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, only for CraigT to leap out of nowhere posting the same arguments in the same aggressive tone and volume? Hmmm, I wonder…

P.P.S. Voytek3, tone down the language. It doesn’t help.

Actually CraigT was HenryBG….

Never placed it but got ham, you are right!

NoImRight5:19 pm 25 Feb 14

howeph said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

For the benefit of Grrr, and Voytek3, so that you know who you’re dealing with:

Stormfront Org is actually the RiotACT user, otherwise known as DUB: http://the-riotact.com/DUB

DUB changed his/her name after being repeatedly caught out lying to the RiotACT community (see Comment #28 on this thread http://the-riotact.com/many-more-turn-out-for-pro-wind-rally/107648 and Comment #10 http://the-riotact.com/diy-wotz-on-guide-for-the-weekend-of-the-26th-of-july-2013/110530#comment-490359)

S/he has made similar unfounded accusations on this thread too:

Stormfront Org said :

There wasn’t many beggars in Civic on Sunday, they probably got paid enough to attend “vigil” service.

Why is it that so many supporters of the the deterrence policy feel that they need to lie about themselves in order to bolster their position?

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, only for CraigT to leap out of nowhere posting the same arguments in the same aggressive tone and volume? Hmmm, I wonder…

P.P.S. Voytek3, tone down the language. It doesn’t help.

I dont think you have to go back too far to find credibilty fails for Stormfront whatever it calls itself. Plenty of threads theyve jumped on with gusto to run away again when challenged to back up their urban legends and bigotry wrapped up in a neat package of ignorance. No doubt Ill be labeled a “Leftie” now (and no Im not) but why do people arguing ultra conservative viewpoints always resort to “facts” based on just “knowing” something or repeating obvious logic fails. As soon as that facade crumbles they then just start patronising and name calling. An argument that devoid of reasoned support has already been lost.

dungfungus3:34 pm 25 Feb 14

bundah said :

howeph said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

For the benefit of Grrr, and Voytek3, so that you know who you’re dealing with:

Stormfront Org is actually the RiotACT user, otherwise known as DUB: http://the-riotact.com/DUB

DUB changed his/her name after being repeatedly caught out lying to the RiotACT community (see Comment #28 on this thread http://the-riotact.com/many-more-turn-out-for-pro-wind-rally/107648 and Comment #10 http://the-riotact.com/diy-wotz-on-guide-for-the-weekend-of-the-26th-of-july-2013/110530#comment-490359)

S/he has made similar unfounded accusations on this thread too:

Stormfront Org said :

There wasn’t many beggars in Civic on Sunday, they probably got paid enough to attend “vigil” service.

Why is it that so many supporters of the the deterrence policy feel that they need to lie about themselves in order to bolster their position?

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, only for CraigT to leap out of nowhere posting the same arguments in the same aggressive tone and volume? Hmmm, I wonder…

P.P.S. Voytek3, tone down the language. It doesn’t help.

Actually CraigT was HenryBG….

Dungfungus will always be loyal to Dungfungus.

bundah2:57 pm 25 Feb 14

howeph said :

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

For the benefit of Grrr, and Voytek3, so that you know who you’re dealing with:

Stormfront Org is actually the RiotACT user, otherwise known as DUB: http://the-riotact.com/DUB

DUB changed his/her name after being repeatedly caught out lying to the RiotACT community (see Comment #28 on this thread http://the-riotact.com/many-more-turn-out-for-pro-wind-rally/107648 and Comment #10 http://the-riotact.com/diy-wotz-on-guide-for-the-weekend-of-the-26th-of-july-2013/110530#comment-490359)

S/he has made similar unfounded accusations on this thread too:

Stormfront Org said :

There wasn’t many beggars in Civic on Sunday, they probably got paid enough to attend “vigil” service.

Why is it that so many supporters of the the deterrence policy feel that they need to lie about themselves in order to bolster their position?

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, only for CraigT to leap out of nowhere posting the same arguments in the same aggressive tone and volume? Hmmm, I wonder…

P.P.S. Voytek3, tone down the language. It doesn’t help.

Actually CraigT was HenryBG….

howeph2:21 pm 25 Feb 14

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

I’m curious to know the Act and relevant section / number you’re referring to, because I was under the impression that it isn’t a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or enter Australia without immigration documents to seek asylum.

What is Codders111’s (#83) getting wrong?

Both you and Codders don’t understand that Australia is taking refugees already (signed convention). It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is ILLEGAL to enter ANY country without immigration papers. Don’t you get it? Read the Migration Act!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679

voytek3 said :

Says the nut job who basically stated he likes it that people are dying on top of factually incorrect information. Sure, all comments except yours should be moderated. And people like you deserve nothing more than being attacked as your opinions are so stupid they are unworthy of legitamate (LOL@ you, voytek) responses.

Ah, voytek3, I was never attacked, nor do I bite to that. But you seem to have a bad case of butt-hurt because you know that you’re wrong.
I will repeat again- legitimate refugees are welcome here (those in UN camps), queue jumpers can drown. They aren’t legitimate.

For the benefit of Grrr, and Voytek3, so that you know who you’re dealing with:

Stormfront Org is actually the RiotACT user, otherwise known as DUB: http://the-riotact.com/DUB

DUB changed his/her name after being repeatedly caught out lying to the RiotACT community (see Comment #28 on this thread http://the-riotact.com/many-more-turn-out-for-pro-wind-rally/107648 and Comment #10 http://the-riotact.com/diy-wotz-on-guide-for-the-weekend-of-the-26th-of-july-2013/110530#comment-490359)

S/he has made similar unfounded accusations on this thread too:

Stormfront Org said :

There wasn’t many beggars in Civic on Sunday, they probably got paid enough to attend “vigil” service.

Why is it that so many supporters of the the deterrence policy feel that they need to lie about themselves in order to bolster their position?

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, only for CraigT to leap out of nowhere posting the same arguments in the same aggressive tone and volume? Hmmm, I wonder…

P.P.S. Voytek3, tone down the language. It doesn’t help.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:29 pm 25 Feb 14

CraigT said :

bigfeet said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Arriving in AUstralia in contravention of the Migration Act is illegal. There is no law that supersedes this Act, somehting that both the UN and the Australian Government appear to understand but that you do not.

There is a general legal principle here that you seem to conveniently forget (or just don’t know about).

That is the principle that “An act which would otherwise be illegal is not illegal if it is authorised, justified or excused by law.”

Some examples would be:

It is illegal to smash someone else’s car window -unless you do the act to rescue a child in danger – (justified by law)

It is illegal to walk around with a gun on your belt – unless you are a police officer – (authorised by law)

It is illegal to ram your car through a shop window – unless you are doing it to stop yourself hitting a person who has run out in front of you – (justified by law)

It is illegal for me to stab you in the neck – unless I am doing it to stop you attempting to kill me – (justified by law)

It is illegal to drive in excess of the speed limit – unless I am doing it to drive you to the hospital after stabbing you in the neck – (excused by law)

Oh and lets not forget this one:

It is illegal to arrive in Australia without a visa – unless you are doing it to claim asylum and do so at the first available opportunity – (authorised, justified AND excused by law)

The UN Convention is not “law”.

The Migration Act is law and nothing supersedes it.

Your assertion that it is illegal to contravene the Migration Act “unless blablabla” is a delusion. It is illegal, full stop.

If you look at the actual Convention, I think you’ll find that crossing into Australia without the appropriate process is, indeed, illegal, but that people found to be genuine refugees will not have a penalty applied for doing so.

To cut a long story short, no it is not illegal to claim asylum, but turning up on a boat (or plane, or hang glider, or…) with authorisation is illegal.

dungfungus8:07 am 25 Feb 14

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

IrishPete said :

Now for Mysteryman’s fictional claims about detention – where does your claim of 115 days average come from? There is no processing taking place, so that has to be made up, or refer to a period when processing was taking place. No processing means that detention becomes indefinite. That in itself is harsh, regardless of the physical conditions (which are also harsh).

The number of people being held in immigration detention in Australia changes on a constant basis. As at 30 September 2013 there were 6,403 people held in immigration detention facilities and 3,241 in community detention.

There is no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention in Australia. The period of time a person spends in detention may vary from a few weeks up to a few years, or even longer. As at 30 September 2013 the average period of time a person would spend in closed immigration detention was 115 days, but 106 people had been held in immigration detention for over 2 years.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-and-human-rights

Not hard to find that information.

IrishPete said :

Seeking asylum is not illegal in a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

This is the problem with people like you. You either don’t understand the difference between arriving illegally and seeking asylum, or you are purposely muddying the waters for the sake of your argument. Seeking asylum is legal. Nobody is debating that. Arriving without a visa is NOT legal. They are not the same thing. Read the convention. It states clearly that although refugees arrive ILLEGALLY, they should not be subject to punishment. It’s right there in the convention. It recognises the fact that they have arrived illegally but signatories agree not to treat them as such. But there are conditions to that. One of which is that they must arrive DIRECTLY from the place they are seeking refuge from. Otherwise, the signatory nations are within their rights to enforce the their own laws regarding illegal entry.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start claiming they’re fiction.

Why aren’t the asylum sneakers charged with conspiracy to enter Australia illegally then? They know they can’t get here through the normal channels so they co-conspire with the people smugglers (I mean a smuggler is a criminal, right?).
When we lock up the Indonesians crewing the “leaky boats” that bring them here what are the charges that they face in court?
Any of you quasi-legal experts care to comment on that one?

So, all you quasi-experts only know about migration laws.
Apparently it is illegal to conspire to smuggle drugs into Australia but perfectly OK to conspire to smuggle people here. Go figure that!

howeph11:33 pm 24 Feb 14

chewy14 said :

Not this again.

Yes this again.

chewy14 said :

It IS an open border policy by any other name.

They’ve set a number of 30 000? Fine. But what they don’t say is what happens to asylum seeker number 30 001? What is to stop them from getting on a boat?

They want to create a massive incentive to get to Indonesia, yet don’t have a plan of what to do if their set ‘limit’ is ever breached. If the limit is unenforceable then it becomes meaningless.

Nothing short of withdrawing from the convention is going to “stop” them from getting on a boat. BUT, under the Greens policy, getting on a boat is not their only option.

The Greens policies establishes the mythical “queue”. It creates a safe, genuine and practical process to follow for asylum seekers.

It provides asylum seekers with an alternative, instead of being forced to risk their lives with people smugglers.

What happens when the quoter is full for the month? They will wait in the queue because they can see that the queue is moving. Why would you risk your life and savings when there is a safe and functioning alternative?

chewy14 said :

And that’s not even starting on the equity issue of treating refugees who have the means to get to Indonesia better than those who don’t. An issue that we’ve been over many times before.

Unlike Labor and the Coalition’s policies, under the Greens policy those resettled from on-shore or from the region, do not displace those being resettled from other UNHCR camps around the world. It just explicitly recognises that we have an obligation, ethically and under the treaty, to help those who arrive on our door step seeking help.

How is that inequitable? How indeed is it not consistent with conservative values?

chewy14 said :

The Greens policy will most likely result in just as many (most likely more) people being persecuted globally, they will just be able to wipe their hands of it because the persecution will be overseas in far flung countries and refugee camps. They get to keep their warm and fuzzy feelings whilst more people die.

Please explain?

I see it the opposite way around.

It is the Labor/Liberal party’s policy of deterrence, off shore camps, denial of courts and media blackout which is trying to push the issue away out of sight and out of mind in the hope that we will all go on with our healthy, wealthy, pleasant, safe lives in blissful, wilful ignorance.

chewy143:30 pm 24 Feb 14

howeph said :

HiddenDragon said :

This Lateline interview of Christine Milne, from July 2013, is instructive (on the question of “let them all”):

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3814671.htm

There’s some confusion towards the end of the transcript, but it’s obvious which, in fact is Milne and which is Alberici speaking, and I don’t see anything like a firm upper number from Milne – it’s much more about process, in the best of all possible worlds.

Yes it is MUCH more about process, but it is not an open border policy.

At the time of that interview I don’t think that the Greens had finalised a number. But they did before the election. It’s 30,000 in total (see the first dot point: http://greens.org.au/safer-pathways), with the increase to be targeted at asylum seekers in our our region thereby providing a safe pathway for asylum seekers, destroying the “people smugglers business model”.

Anyone claiming the Greens, or the majority of asylum seeker advocates, want an “open border” / “let them all come” solution is ignorant of the facts or lying.

Not this again. It IS an open border policy by any other name.

They’ve set a number of 30 000? Fine. But what they don’t say is what happens to asylum seeker number 30 001? What is to stop them from getting on a boat?

They want to create a massive incentive to get to Indonesia, yet don’t have a plan of what to do if their set ‘limit’ is ever breached. If the limit is unenforceable then it becomes meaningless.

And that’s not even starting on the equity issue of treating refugees who have the means to get to Indonesia better than those who don’t. An issue that we’ve been over many times before.

The Greens policy will most likely result in just as many (most likely more) people being persecuted globally, they will just be able to wipe their hands of it because the persecution will be overseas in far flung countries and refugee camps. They get to keep their warm and fuzzy feelings whilst more people die.

dungfungus9:31 pm 23 Feb 14

Mysteryman said :

IrishPete said :

Now for Mysteryman’s fictional claims about detention – where does your claim of 115 days average come from? There is no processing taking place, so that has to be made up, or refer to a period when processing was taking place. No processing means that detention becomes indefinite. That in itself is harsh, regardless of the physical conditions (which are also harsh).

The number of people being held in immigration detention in Australia changes on a constant basis. As at 30 September 2013 there were 6,403 people held in immigration detention facilities and 3,241 in community detention.

There is no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention in Australia. The period of time a person spends in detention may vary from a few weeks up to a few years, or even longer. As at 30 September 2013 the average period of time a person would spend in closed immigration detention was 115 days, but 106 people had been held in immigration detention for over 2 years.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-and-human-rights

Not hard to find that information.

IrishPete said :

Seeking asylum is not illegal in a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

This is the problem with people like you. You either don’t understand the difference between arriving illegally and seeking asylum, or you are purposely muddying the waters for the sake of your argument. Seeking asylum is legal. Nobody is debating that. Arriving without a visa is NOT legal. They are not the same thing. Read the convention. It states clearly that although refugees arrive ILLEGALLY, they should not be subject to punishment. It’s right there in the convention. It recognises the fact that they have arrived illegally but signatories agree not to treat them as such. But there are conditions to that. One of which is that they must arrive DIRECTLY from the place they are seeking refuge from. Otherwise, the signatory nations are within their rights to enforce the their own laws regarding illegal entry.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start claiming they’re fiction.

Why aren’t the asylum sneakers charged with conspiracy to enter Australia illegally then? They know they can’t get here through the normal channels so they co-conspire with the people smugglers (I mean a smuggler is a criminal, right?).
When we lock up the Indonesians crewing the “leaky boats” that bring them here what are the charges that they face in court?
Any of you quasi-legal experts care to comment on that one?

IrishPete9:40 am 23 Feb 14

slashdot said :

IrishPete said :

No-one promotes a “we should just let them all come” approach. I would like to see processing occur in Indonesia or Malaysia or wherever. But there isn’t any – there is no queue to jump. That leaves asylum seekers wanting to come to Oz with just one option. Clive Palmer’s idea of flying them in is perhaps a little naive, but the concept has some merit.

I’m sorry, but many people advocate “we should just let them all come” approach. Sarah Hanson Young is a big proponent.

In fact, ask any refugee advocate, how many should we let in? They all skirt the issue, because they think they should all be let in.

Please see post number 30, which I presume you didn’t see before posting this.

By “no-one” I was referring to political parties, sorry if that wasn’t clear (though I think in the context it was clear I was defending the Greens).

Lumping all refugee advocates together is like lumping all Liberal party members or voters together – if one says something, then you tar everyone with that brush? Of course there are refugee advocates and also politicians who engage in woolly thinking, who want to do what feels good without thinking through the broader ramifications. The Greens policy does not do that. It would create the queue that everyone currently talks about boat people jumping, but that doesn’t actually exist and certainly not in Indonesia.

Incidentally, Oz could solve the boat people problem overnight by persuading Indonesia to sign the refugee convention. That’s the kind of diplomacy I’ve alluded to. We give them a lot aid per year, including military aid, so how about we attach some strings? Abbot and Bishop and Morrison have pretty much screwed up any leverage with Indonesia, partly because of previous Governments’ ridiculous spying activities, but also largely because of their own behaviour. So I’d be interested to know what “intelligent diplomacy” people think has been tried.

IrishPete9:30 am 23 Feb 14

Mysteryman said :

IrishPete said :

Now for Mysteryman’s fictional claims about detention – where does your claim of 115 days average come from? There is no processing taking place, so that has to be made up, or refer to a period when processing was taking place. No processing means that detention becomes indefinite. That in itself is harsh, regardless of the physical conditions (which are also harsh).

The number of people being held in immigration detention in Australia changes on a constant basis. As at 30 September 2013 there were 6,403 people held in immigration detention facilities and 3,241 in community detention.

There is no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention in Australia. The period of time a person spends in detention may vary from a few weeks up to a few years, or even longer. As at 30 September 2013 the average period of time a person would spend in closed immigration detention was 115 days, but 106 people had been held in immigration detention for over 2 years.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-and-human-rights

Not hard to find that information.

IrishPete said :

Seeking asylum is not illegal in a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

This is the problem with people like you. You either don’t understand the difference between arriving illegally and seeking asylum, or you are purposely muddying the waters for the sake of your argument. Seeking asylum is legal. Nobody is debating that. Arriving without a visa is NOT legal. They are not the same thing. Read the convention. It states clearly that although refugees arrive ILLEGALLY, they should not be subject to punishment. It’s right there in the convention. It recognises the fact that they have arrived illegally but signatories agree not to treat them as such. But there are conditions to that. One of which is that they must arrive DIRECTLY from the place they are seeking refuge from. Otherwise, the signatory nations are within their rights to enforce the their own laws regarding illegal entry.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start claiming they’re fiction.

I thought you would post information like that. There is a complete failure of logic. Because your post ignores that no-one is being released from detention any more, and that information dates from 30th September. Did you not notice the Labor and Coalition Governments policies on this? So the average will have increased substantially since then, subject to the following qualifier. The quote you provide says “in Australia”. Can you see any problem with that? Nauru and Manus Island? The wording from the HRC’s website is also weird “the average period of time a person would spend in closed immigration detention” – the tense is odd. What period does that refer to? The preceding year? 10 years? So thanks for providing your source, because I know the topic well enough to know that it was not going to back up your claim.

On “illegal” – yes, it’s emotive and confusing, Here’s one source that doesn’t entirely clear it up http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts#_Toc348096465 That document does not mention the “first safe country” rule but covers just about everything else. The point refugee advocates make is that as a non-signatory to the convention, Indonesia is not a safe country. Are any of the other countries the asylum seekers have passed through signatories and safe? We don’t know unless we know how they got to Indonesia. (Sri Lankans coming straight from Sri Lanka are obviously in the clear.) Sure Indonesia might be relatively safe on a day to day basis, but if they are not a signatory to the convention, then the asylum seeker risks being detained and deported at any time. Nor can they legally work. Their situation is precarious.

The reason refugee advocates get upset about asylum seekers being called “illegal”, as the current Government now does, it that is is part of a not very subtle process of demonising them. So the use of pejorative terms is strongly resisted. I have absolutely no problem with their method of arrival being called “illegal”, and the people smugglers and the boat crew. But to apply the adjective “illegal” to the people themselves is a step too far and is legally very debatable.

Mysteryman9:56 pm 22 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

Now for Mysteryman’s fictional claims about detention – where does your claim of 115 days average come from? There is no processing taking place, so that has to be made up, or refer to a period when processing was taking place. No processing means that detention becomes indefinite. That in itself is harsh, regardless of the physical conditions (which are also harsh).

The number of people being held in immigration detention in Australia changes on a constant basis. As at 30 September 2013 there were 6,403 people held in immigration detention facilities and 3,241 in community detention.

There is no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention in Australia. The period of time a person spends in detention may vary from a few weeks up to a few years, or even longer. As at 30 September 2013 the average period of time a person would spend in closed immigration detention was 115 days, but 106 people had been held in immigration detention for over 2 years.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-and-human-rights

Not hard to find that information.

IrishPete said :

Seeking asylum is not illegal in a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

This is the problem with people like you. You either don’t understand the difference between arriving illegally and seeking asylum, or you are purposely muddying the waters for the sake of your argument. Seeking asylum is legal. Nobody is debating that. Arriving without a visa is NOT legal. They are not the same thing. Read the convention. It states clearly that although refugees arrive ILLEGALLY, they should not be subject to punishment. It’s right there in the convention. It recognises the fact that they have arrived illegally but signatories agree not to treat them as such. But there are conditions to that. One of which is that they must arrive DIRECTLY from the place they are seeking refuge from. Otherwise, the signatory nations are within their rights to enforce the their own laws regarding illegal entry.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start claiming they’re fiction.

Queen_of_the_Bun7:19 pm 22 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

I used to agree with the “we’re so inhumane to lock up refugees, we should just let them all come” mantra. Then I started working in the area and began to understand that there is no simple solution.

Many people seeking asylum are genuinely fleeing persecution, and their lives are at risk. Many others are genuinely fleeing starvation caused by famine and poverty, and their lives are at risk.

But there are also the ones who just want a better life for themselves and their children. No-one can blame them for wanting that, but I know a lot of Brits and Irish and Europeans who would love to be able to move here permanently and can’t. Indeed, there has been at least one case of an asylum seeker coming here by boat who already had asylum status in Germany.

I urge everyone to read “What is the What” by Dave Eggers to get an understanding of what the people waiting for decades in camps in Africa are going through while they wait patiently for asylum.

It’s very hard to disentangle the “want a better life for economic reasons” from the “want a better life for persecution reasons”. Most people probably have some of each, in varying proportions. And their choice of country to come to is also always going to be affected by accessibility and attractiveness. There’s a well-developed industry in getting people to Oz from Indonesia, which makes us very accessible.

No-one promotes a “we should just let them all come” approach. I would like to see processing occur in Indonesia or Malaysia or wherever. But there isn’t any – there is no queue to jump. That leaves asylum seekers wanting to come to Oz with just one option. Clive Palmer’s idea of flying them in is perhaps a little naive, but the concept has some merit.

And I don’t accept the idea that we are responsible for the drownings because we granted asylum to those arriving by boat. The people smugglers are responsible for the drownings and should be treated accordingly. The Indonesian Government is responsible for not controlling their borders properly. A diplomatic and intelligent Australia Government could have tried to fix these things, instead the give us gunboat diplomacy.

IP

A diplomatic and intelligent Australia has tried to fix these things. What is your solution? And your party of choice, the Greens, does have a “let them all come” policy, unless Sarah Hanson Young is going rogue.

IrishPete6:33 pm 22 Feb 14

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

I used to agree with the “we’re so inhumane to lock up refugees, we should just let them all come” mantra. Then I started working in the area and began to understand that there is no simple solution.

Many people seeking asylum are genuinely fleeing persecution, and their lives are at risk. Many others are genuinely fleeing starvation caused by famine and poverty, and their lives are at risk.

But there are also the ones who just want a better life for themselves and their children. No-one can blame them for wanting that, but I know a lot of Brits and Irish and Europeans who would love to be able to move here permanently and can’t. Indeed, there has been at least one case of an asylum seeker coming here by boat who already had asylum status in Germany.

I urge everyone to read “What is the What” by Dave Eggers to get an understanding of what the people waiting for decades in camps in Africa are going through while they wait patiently for asylum.

It’s very hard to disentangle the “want a better life for economic reasons” from the “want a better life for persecution reasons”. Most people probably have some of each, in varying proportions. And their choice of country to come to is also always going to be affected by accessibility and attractiveness. There’s a well-developed industry in getting people to Oz from Indonesia, which makes us very accessible.

No-one promotes a “we should just let them all come” approach. I would like to see processing occur in Indonesia or Malaysia or wherever. But there isn’t any – there is no queue to jump. That leaves asylum seekers wanting to come to Oz with just one option. Clive Palmer’s idea of flying them in is perhaps a little naive, but the concept has some merit.

And I don’t accept the idea that we are responsible for the drownings because we granted asylum to those arriving by boat. The people smugglers are responsible for the drownings and should be treated accordingly. The Indonesian Government is responsible for not controlling their borders properly. A diplomatic and intelligent Australia Government could have tried to fix these things, instead the give us gunboat diplomacy.

IrishPete11:26 am 22 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock seems to be an agent provocateur for the humanitarian lobby. Why else would s/he claim 5000 drownings, five times more than even the Australian Government is claiming? (Having earlier asked me for evidence that the boats haven’t stopped and the drownings haven’t stopped!) Good work there N_C, you ill draw out the fools who agree with you and show them up for what they are.

Now, for evidence the boats haven’t stopped and the drownings haven’t stopped:

Here just one example in December of deaths at sea: http://www.news.com.au/national/twoyearold-child-among-three-asylum-seekers-who-drowned-off-indonesia-enroute-to-australia/story-fncynjr2-1226780024715 and for evidence they haven’t stopped: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/asylumseeker-lifeboat-pictures-arresting-pm/story-e6frg6n6-1226815620839 I have deliberately chosen the Murdoch media as the sources. There are many other sources and many other incidents.

Of course the information on these incidents, and many many more, does not come from the Australian Government, who won’t comment on things that might be inconvenient – “operational matters” gets rolled out as an excuse when they don’t want to comment, ignored when they want to report their idea of “good news”. The information comes from Indonesian Government and media, or community, and as you imply correctly with your comments about West Papua, the Indonesians are not always reliable either. In the early days, when asylum seekers were still being landed on Christmas Island, information also came from Christmas Island residents who believe in freedom of information (one of the cornerstones of democracy).

The body counters also like to ignore that there were hundreds of drownings under Howard’s “Pacific Solution” too. Here are two sources that predate the federal election: http://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-more-than-1000-asylum-seekers-died-at-sea-under-labor-16221 and https://theconversation.com/stop-the-deaths-rescuing-asylum-seekers-is-an-integrity-issue-13071
Don’t you remember Siev X? An inconvenient truth perhaps?

Now for Mysteryman’s fictional claims about detention – where does your claim of 115 days average come from? There is no processing taking place, so that has to be made up, or refer to a period when processing was taking place. No processing means that detention becomes indefinite. That in itself is harsh, regardless of the physical conditions (which are also harsh).

Seeking asylum is not illegal in a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

But the more serious point is that you cannot measure the effectiveness of government polices over a short period of time, most recently coinciding with the monsoon season when boat departures always reduced. Nor can you measure the effectiveness in the absence of reliable information, nor when the politicians move the goal posts from “boat departures” to “boat arrivals”. Regardless of your support for or opposition to the current government’s policies, or the previous governments, if you are anything but a party flunky, you will believe in reasonable access to information. Labor may have been over the top with their blow-by-blow reporting, the current mob have swung too far the other way.

IP
:

Mysteryman8:36 am 22 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

“A sad, pathetic occasion attended by delusional people with no brains. The boats have stopped, the mass drownings at sea have stopped and our welfare system is no longer being abused by these scumbags. I am sure that in left wing Canberra there will be a big turnout to this rally but that doesn’t alter the fact that they are idiots on the wrong side of history.”

The boats have not stopped. The drownings have not stopped. What has happened is that the government no longer tells you anything. Today they refused to answer any questions about how many boats were intercepted. I am sure if it was “none” they would have said so. And it’s very easy to claim there are no drownings if you don’t send anyone to look for the bodies, washing your hands like Pontius Pilot or Lady MacBeth.

Sure, the number boats has probably reduced because of the extremely harsh treatment being meted out. I wonder how the people involved in that – politicians, Customs, Navy, Immigration, private security companies -,can sleep at night. Would they have done the same to Jews fleeing persecution in 1930s and 1940s Europe. Almost definitely. Godwin’s Law does not apply, because this is a valid comparison.

IP

So firstly you claim the boats and drownings haven’t stopped, then you claim the government is hiding all the information. If the government is hiding all the information, how the hell would you know if the boats and drownings continue?

You don’t know.

As for the “extreme harsh treatment”… I hardly think having to wait in a detention centre while your claim is processed qualifies as “extreme harsh treatment”. The simple fact is that under the refugee convention we are not required to grant these people asylum as they haven’t arrived directly from the place they are fleeing. We have every right to treat them as illegal arrivals – that’s what they are. It’s not a grey area. I can’t comment on the conditions over on Manus Island but quite frankly legitimate refugees fleeing a country for the sake of their safety are in no place to make demands on their hosts. The average time a person is in detention is 115 days. I’m ok with someone spending that kind of time in a detention centre while the government tries to figure out why all their paperwork has mysteriously disappeared and where they’ve come from. Four months waiting with shelter, food, water, and no fear of being killed is a short period of time for someone fleeing for their life. If they act violently and riot/break out of a detention centre they were sent to while their claim for asylum is processed, they should get a free ride straight back home.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

View the best of Canberra

UC Shapes Canberra

Refugee Candlelight Vigil in Garema Place this Saturday 7:30PM

Join the conversation

What's Trending

Featured Properties

Today's Poll

Featured Businesses

Podiatrists

Lawyers

Insurance Brokers

Lawyers

Lawyers

Mortgage Brokers

Community Club

Electricians

What's On

Late night Christmas shopping at the National Library Bookshop

Bibliomania: Stories from Inside and Outside the Book

Exhibition - Hopes and Fears: Australian Migration Stories

Joan Ross: Those trees came back to me in my dreams

Related Stories

Daily Digest