21 February 2014

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

| howeph
Join the conversation
251
candlelight vigil cups

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
LatestOldest

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Captain RAAF9:52 am 11 Mar 14

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?

I promised Mrs RAAF I’d stay away from here but if I may just poke my nose in for a sec…

It’s all very quaint and nice for people to stick up for Islam/Muslims and try to convince us that there isn’t anything to fear but you’re kidding yourselves. I know some of the followers of Islam are nice people who really don’t care for world domination but sadly, many of them do. That’s a fact and there’s no use disputing it.

As far as which religion is more to blame, sure Christianity has to take its share but its reign of terror was centuries ago, move on, nothing to see here.

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, with luck, will begin the ‘Great war on Islam’ where the world will finally get the chance to exterminate it once and for all. The seeds are already popping up in Europe; we just need one little push and were away!!

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.

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?

NoImRight said :

Do you also see the millions of Christians in Egypt as “zero”?

Did anybody say they are zero?

does the fact they have no yet been entirely eliminated render their persecution OK, does it?

What is it with lefties? What is wronf with their brains?

Here is Wikipedia’s ironic comment on the issue:
“There is no explanation for a 55% decline in the percentage of Christians in Egypt.(over the 20th Century)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#Persecution_and_discrimination_in_Egypt

NoImRight said :

Umm what? Are you seriously suggesting Palestine and Egypt were Christian countries? .

Egypt was a Christian country. In fact it was one of the 5 pillars of the Orthodox church. Now look at how christians are treated there.

Palestine was much more pluralistic, before muslims invaded and proceeded to cleanse the place.

Having secured those countries under the yoke of their arabic religion, they are moving on – here’s what they were up to 2 years ago at the frontline of Islamic invasion in Mali:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/africa/couple-stoned-to-death-by-islamists-in-mali.html?_r=0

And last week in Nigeria:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/07/nigeria-shuts-schools-stem-attacks
“Last week, 43 students were shot and hacked to death when suspected Boko Haram gunmen stormed Federal Government College in Buni Yadi, Yobe state.

An undisclosed number of female students was abducted during the overnight attack, while the whole school was burnt down.

Yobe state authorities said last October that Boko Haram attacks had razed 209 schools, causing damage worth an estimated $US15.6 million ($A17.41 million).”

Spiral said :

NoImRight said :

Umm what? Are you seriously suggesting Palestine and Egypt were Christian countries? “Going back some years” means what? The time of dinasaurs and wizards? Your credibility on this is virtually non-existent now. It seems your entire research into this extends to the headlines of the Daily Telegraph. You cant even be bothered learning anything about the people youve decided to hate.

What religion do you think the majority of Egyptians were before it became Islamic?

Nice cherry picking. What about Palestine? Do you also see the millions of Christians in Egypt as “zero”? You guys ned to stop contradicting each other too. Surely when you operate on no facts at all you can at least all stick to the same fairy tale.

NoImRight said :

Umm what? Are you seriously suggesting Palestine and Egypt were Christian countries? “Going back some years” means what? The time of dinasaurs and wizards? Your credibility on this is virtually non-existent now. It seems your entire research into this extends to the headlines of the Daily Telegraph. You cant even be bothered learning anything about the people youve decided to hate.

What religion do you think the majority of Egyptians were before it became Islamic?

Nylex_Clock said :

NoImRight said :

Do you really think the conflicts in the countries you mentioned are about “cleansing” Christians? .

Yes.

Going back some years, there were precisely zero muslims in either Palestine or Egypt.
Now, the proportion of those countries that are *not* muslim is trending towards zero.
This trend is not happening independently of Islam’s attitudes towards non-muslims.

Umm what? Are you seriously suggesting Palestine and Egypt were Christian countries? “Going back some years” means what? The time of dinasaurs and wizards? Your credibility on this is virtually non-existent now. It seems your entire research into this extends to the headlines of the Daily Telegraph. You cant even be bothered learning anything about the people youve decided to hate.

Nylex_Clock said :

howeph said :

I disagree. To me multiculturalism in Australia has been progressive and a shining success story demonstrating how multiculturalism enriches our own culture.
.

Well you are in denial.

In the real world, multiculturalism has been debunked and the only two major countries in the world to have embraced it (UK & Germany) have both annuonced it a failure.

In Germany, they would consider our half-hearted opposition to fake-asylum-seekers quite tame.

Here is how germans are reacting right now:
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2014-03/rechtsextremismus-asylbewerber-angriffe

That’s 21 attacks by the public on hostels/detention centres in just the last 9 weeks, just like how the inhabitants of Manus reacted recently. Australians have proven remarkably tolerant. The best way to keep it that way is to stop rewarding fake refugees with visas they do not deserve.

The same feelings against the Roma are reported on in Italy. This link to the Guardian dilutes the extent of the violence somewhat: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/17/italy
I empathise with the Roma who are expelled from one EU country to another. They are not sucking on the welfare teat as much as the migrants with huge families from North Africa.

CrocodileGandhi said :

So locals are attacking detention centres and you’re saying the solution is to not take in asylum seekers? Wouldn’t it make more sense to lock up the people who are attacking detention centres?

No. The answer is to stop and take stock of what is going on.

Civil disorder is rarely solved by any kind of law and order initiative based on methods available to a democracy.

Here’s what happened in Belfast when the locals realised they were being invaded by welfare-scrounging foreigners:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8114234.stm

NoImRight said :

Nylex_Clock said :

NoImRight said :

#219. Yes no biggie is it? Invade, remove the existing Government and establish one that will do as its told. Just because its been done quite badly doesnt mean it wasnt the intent. Being disingenuous and trying to hide behind the UN? Weak defence.You are running for cover.

Where in the world are christians currently cleansing an occupied country of non-christians?

Because in the real world, this kind of activity seems to correlate very well with Islam, not Christianity.
Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Keep your straw man. I didnt say christians were cleansing non-christian countries. Comprehension fail at step one it seems. If you want an example of that though google Sarajevo some time.

Do you really think the conflicts in the countries you mentioned are about “cleansing” Christians? Or does it just suit this particular whipping boy? Either you dont follow whats happening in the world or your paranoid episodes are getting out of hand. Either way your comments on this topic are misguided at best and becoming increasingly irrelevant..

The Balkans war… one of the most horrid things of our recent times. And the world waited and let it unravel. A massive blight on modern history.

Let no person say that horrid unspeakable inhumanity is strictly the preserve of one race culture or creed. That much, at the least.

With warning for extreme disgust, this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
try the subtitle:
Rape and abuse of civilians

Please be warned. This is very difficult material.

CrocodileGandhi4:04 pm 06 Mar 14

So locals are attacking detention centres and you’re saying the solution is to not take in asylum seekers? Wouldn’t it make more sense to lock up the people who are attacking detention centres?

howeph said :

I disagree. To me multiculturalism in Australia has been progressive and a shining success story demonstrating how multiculturalism enriches our own culture.
.

Well you are in denial.

In the real world, multiculturalism has been debunked and the only two major countries in the world to have embraced it (UK & Germany) have both annuonced it a failure.

In Germany, they would consider our half-hearted opposition to fake-asylum-seekers quite tame.

Here is how germans are reacting right now:
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2014-03/rechtsextremismus-asylbewerber-angriffe

That’s 21 attacks by the public on hostels/detention centres in just the last 9 weeks, just like how the inhabitants of Manus reacted recently. Australians have proven remarkably tolerant. The best way to keep it that way is to stop rewarding fake refugees with visas they do not deserve.

NoImRight said :

Do you really think the conflicts in the countries you mentioned are about “cleansing” Christians? .

Yes.

Going back some years, there were precisely zero muslims in either Palestine or Egypt.
Now, the proportion of those countries that are *not* muslim is trending towards zero.
This trend is not happening independently of Islam’s attitudes towards non-muslims.

Nylex_Clock said :

NoImRight said :

#219. Yes no biggie is it? Invade, remove the existing Government and establish one that will do as its told. Just because its been done quite badly doesnt mean it wasnt the intent. Being disingenuous and trying to hide behind the UN? Weak defence.You are running for cover.

Where in the world are christians currently cleansing an occupied country of non-christians?

Because in the real world, this kind of activity seems to correlate very well with Islam, not Christianity.
Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Keep your straw man. I didnt say christians were cleansing non-christian countries. Comprehension fail at step one it seems. If you want an example of that though google Sarajevo some time.

Do you really think the conflicts in the countries you mentioned are about “cleansing” Christians? Or does it just suit this particular whipping boy? Either you dont follow whats happening in the world or your paranoid episodes are getting out of hand. Either way your comments on this topic are misguided at best and becoming increasingly irrelevant..

Nylex_Clock said :

NoImRight said :

#219. Yes no biggie is it? Invade, remove the existing Government and establish one that will do as its told. Just because its been done quite badly doesnt mean it wasnt the intent. Being disingenuous and trying to hide behind the UN? Weak defence.You are running for cover.

Where in the world are christians currently cleansing an occupied country of non-christians?

Because in the real world, this kind of activity seems to correlate very well with Islam, not Christianity.
Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Exactly.

NoImRight said :

#219. Yes no biggie is it? Invade, remove the existing Government and establish one that will do as its told. Just because its been done quite badly doesnt mean it wasnt the intent. Being disingenuous and trying to hide behind the UN? Weak defence.You are running for cover.

Where in the world are christians currently cleansing an occupied country of non-christians?

Because in the real world, this kind of activity seems to correlate very well with Islam, not Christianity.
Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc etc etc.

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. 🙂

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?

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

#219. Yes no biggie is it? Invade, remove the existing Government and establish one that will do as its told. Just because its been done quite badly doesnt mean it wasnt the intent. Being disingenuous and trying to hide behind the UN? Weak defence.You are running for cover.

dungfungus said :

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.

Who gives a rats arse what the religious nutters think of climate change. There’s no science in religion just a shitload of baa-lambs…

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.

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.

dungfungus said :

Only the paranoid survive.

Rofl Say that in the Climate thread, PollyAnna. Are you Arthur or Martha today?

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?

Only the paranoid survive.

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.

Pork Hunt said :

Nylex_Clock said :

justin heywood said :

NoImRight said :

[

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…..

..and don’t forget the Crusades!

It’s a sign of how thin your argument is when you have to go back 40 years to find comparisons, and even then they’re not really comparable.

Not comparable? You mean Jesus wasn’t a paedo?

What Sunday school did you go to if you think Jesus was a pedo?
PS. I think the crusades happened 400 years ago, not 40…

You’re right. If I cast my mind back, I can’t remember being taught anything about the christian religion’s prophet/godlet/whatever being a paedo. Because that was an entrenched part of the christian religion, then paedophilia in christian societies would be (even more) rampant.

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?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:23 pm 04 Mar 14

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?

Nylex_Clock said :

justin heywood said :

NoImRight said :

[

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…..

..and don’t forget the Crusades!

It’s a sign of how thin your argument is when you have to go back 40 years to find comparisons, and even then they’re not really comparable.

Not comparable? You mean Jesus wasn’t a paedo?

What Sunday school did you go to if you think Jesus was a pedo?
PS. I think the crusades happened 400 years ago, not 40…

howeph said :

Nylex_Clock said :

The British and German governments have both done so.

The French never adopted it, nor did many other European governments. The Danes have revolutionised their immigration system as a result of their imported troubles. No major European country still espouses this failed policy.

Sources?

Nylex_Clock said :

Multiculturalism is dead.

Says who and why?

Nylex_Clock said :

Australia is just a bit backward.

I disagree. To me multiculturalism in Australia has been progressive and a shining success story demonstrating how multiculturalism enriches our own culture.

But I’m an optimist.

I have confidence in the strength or Australia’s evolving culture and society. I’m not worried by the influence that immigration and asylum seekers will bring. I’m sure that the vast majority come here to partake in the best of our culture and to share the best of theirs.

No, I’m much more concerned by your radical, nationalistic and authoritarian ideas. Ideas that are driven by your insecurity. History has shown that these unwarranted fears are dangerous and if not controlled bring out the worst in humanity.

We are seeing the influence of those fears now in the way Australia treats asylum seekers. An episode in Australia’s history that future generations will look back on in shame.

Future generations will most probably look at the floor while facing Mecca.
If you want to rely on history, go and read up on Spain in the 15th century.

justin heywood said :

Go to love the Green Left. Bashing people for religious bigotry, but they can’t resist a swipe at Catholics on the very same thread.

Where did I take a swipe at Catholics? Are you referring to this: “When has an asylum seeker tried to indoctrinate you? It’s the white Anglo Christians who keep knocking on my door trying to convert me and my family.”

In which case I’ll refer you to this thread where I say:

“A Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door, whilst he/she might be being rude and presumptuous, is not being intolerant of my beliefs if they walk away when asked.” Comment #136

justin heywood said :

Apparently people who don’t support their position are racists too, and they hate racism. But again, they blame the Jews ON THE VERY SAME THREAD.

Where have I blamed the Jews?

justin heywood said :

And all the climate change deniers are idiots who don’t understand the concept of scientific consensus. But when it comes to GMOs of course, well that’s different.

Where have I mentioned GMOs (by which I assume you mean Genetically Modified Organisams)?

You might be surprised that I support the use of genetic modification to increase crop yields, increase drought tolerance, etc. We are going to need such technology to deal with the effects of climate change and over population. I do however recognise some very questionable ethical political and business practices with respect to intellectual property, GMOs, trade and the developing world.

justin heywood said :

I could go on. If self-righteous hypocrisy was a person, it would vote Green.

Please do go on. Show me where I have been hypocritical. Or do you just presume and assume and make stuff up?

Like all large groups there is a diversity of opinion on a range of topics. That’s why the whole “left-right” paradigm is obsolete. But don’t let that stop you from branding me a lefty.

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

So when and where have we persecuted Muslims IN AUSTRALIA ?

We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are all Muslim, so does that count?

How are we persecuting asylum seekers?

The UNHCR’s Report found that the current policy and practice of detaining all asylum-seekers on a mandatory and indefinite basis, without an individual assessment or possibility for review, amounts to arbitrary detention which is inconsistent with the obligations of both Australia and PNG under international human rights law.

dungfungus said :

When did I say they were all Muslims?

I didn’t say you did. I said you “seam to”. But your never ending discriminatory references to Muslims whenever the issue of asylum seekers is raised shows that my statement is correct. But if it helps I’ll drop the definitive “all”. So my statement in answer to your question becomes:

“We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are Muslim, so does that count?

You were the one that alluded to Muslims asylum seekers exclusively. By the way, the word is “seem”.

Nylex_Clock said :

The British and German governments have both done so.

The French never adopted it, nor did many other European governments. The Danes have revolutionised their immigration system as a result of their imported troubles. No major European country still espouses this failed policy.

Sources?

Nylex_Clock said :

Multiculturalism is dead.

Says who and why?

Nylex_Clock said :

Australia is just a bit backward.

I disagree. To me multiculturalism in Australia has been progressive and a shining success story demonstrating how multiculturalism enriches our own culture.

But I’m an optimist.

I have confidence in the strength or Australia’s evolving culture and society. I’m not worried by the influence that immigration and asylum seekers will bring. I’m sure that the vast majority come here to partake in the best of our culture and to share the best of theirs.

No, I’m much more concerned by your radical, nationalistic and authoritarian ideas. Ideas that are driven by your insecurity. History has shown that these unwarranted fears are dangerous and if not controlled bring out the worst in humanity.

We are seeing the influence of those fears now in the way Australia treats asylum seekers. An episode in Australia’s history that future generations will look back on in shame.

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

So when and where have we persecuted Muslims IN AUSTRALIA ?

We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are all Muslim, so does that count?

How are we persecuting asylum seekers?

The UNHCR’s Report found that the current policy and practice of detaining all asylum-seekers on a mandatory and indefinite basis, without an individual assessment or possibility for review, amounts to arbitrary detention which is inconsistent with the obligations of both Australia and PNG under international human rights law.

dungfungus said :

When did I say they were all Muslims?

I didn’t say you did. I said you “seam to”. But your never ending discriminatory references to Muslims whenever the issue of asylum seekers is raised shows that my statement is correct. But if it helps I’ll drop the definitive “all”. So my statement in answer to your question becomes:

“We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are Muslim, so does that count?

justin heywood4:49 pm 04 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

How are we persecuting asylum seekers? When did I say they were all Muslims? Who are the Muslims we are persecuting in Australia?

Apparently you were dog whistling but only they can hear it.

Go to love the Green Left. Bashing people for religious bigotry, but they can’t resist a swipe at Catholics on the very same thread.

Apparently people who don’t support their position are racists too, and they hate racism. But again, they blame the Jews ON THE VERY SAME THREAD.

And all the climate change deniers are idiots who don’t understand the concept of scientific consensus. But when it comes to GMOs of course, well that’s different.

I could go on. If self-righteous hypocrisy was a person, it would vote Green.

justin heywood said :

NoImRight said :

[

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…..

..and don’t forget the Crusades!

It’s a sign of how thin your argument is when you have to go back 40 years to find comparisons, and even then they’re not really comparable.

Not comparable? You mean Jesus wasn’t a paedo?

howeph said :

bundah said :

The fact that there is social unrest in various parts of Europe where some European govts have declared that multiculturalism is a failure and I have accepted that may be the case in no way means i’m racist.

Is multiculturalism a failure in Europe? I’m not convinced, nor have an opinion, one way or the other. Which governments have declared it a failure?.

The British and German governments have both done so.

The French never adopted it, nor did many other European governments. The Danes have revolutionised their immigration system as a result of their imported troubles. No major European country still espouses this failed policy.

Multiculturalism is dead. Australia is just a bit backward.

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

So when and where have we persecuted Muslims IN AUSTRALIA ?

We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are all Muslim, so does that count?

How are we persecuting asylum seekers? When did I say they were all Muslims? Who are the Muslims we are persecuting in Australia?

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.

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?

dungfungus said :

So when and where have we persecuted Muslims IN AUSTRALIA ?

We are persecuting asylum seekers. You seam to assume that they are all Muslim, so does that count?

dungfungus said :

Boris Johnson wrote about this yesterday:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26413024

Any of you bleeding hearts prepared to call Boris Johnson a bigot like you called me a bigot?

Yes. Another politician dog-whistling to his right wing conservative base.

Do you think that his loveable antics makes him the unquestionable fount of truth and wisdom do you?

CraigT said :

CraigT said :

Our support for Indonesia/Israel/Saudi Arabia is unethical. Indonesia is by far the worst – we (but mostly, the ALP) conspired with Indonesia to invade East TImor and slaughter 30% o fits inhabitants, just as we are now conspiring with them again – by virtue of our silent acquiescence – to commit genocide in West Papua.

Not that Howeph cares about that.

For some reason, genuine Genocide is not important. More important is labelling the people that have shown you to be ignorant and mistaken, to be bigots.

How do you know what my position is on those issues. How rude of you to presume. I will say this though:

Australia’s ability to criticise other nations violations of human rights has been destroyed by our own blatant violations of human rights in the name of sovereignty. Due to the policies you support we are now just hypocrites.

Thanks for that.

NoImRight said :

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…..

Couldn’t agree more. Cardinal George Pell in his convict-stone mansion is just as bad in his own fashion as any radical Imam who is excusing rape in a suburban mosque. However badly behaved he has been, though, I don’t think Pell has actually formally sanctioned child abuse. His behaviour was behind-the-scenes panic. Not officiating over the marriage vows of a 13-year-old.

bundah said :

The fact that there is social unrest in various parts of Europe where some European govts have declared that multiculturalism is a failure and I have accepted that may be the case in no way means i’m racist.

Is multiculturalism a failure in Europe? I’m not convinced, nor have an opinion, one way or the other. Which governments have declared it a failure? Sure many, many politicians make such declarations in order to sure up votes from their nationalist supporters – but they are hardly objective assessments.

Why have you “accepted that may be the case”? What objective research have you done? Or is it just the position that most easily fits with your world view? Which, if the case, begs the question: what is it about your world view that makes that position fit?

More to the point how is any of the above relevant to Australia? Do you think that multiculturalism has failed in Australia and if so on what grounds?

bundah said :

Personally I don’t give a shit whether one is black.white,gay,straight,muslim.christian etc so long as you don’t try and indoctrinate me to your style and belief system we’ll get on fine.

When has an asylum seeker tried to indoctrinate you? It’s the white Anglo Christians who keep knocking on my door trying to convert me and my family.

Cant quote for some reason? #192. “have to go back 40 years” Well no I dont. I can pull something out of todays news if you want. It was just an easy example and an indication that there are bad people in every race and religion.

What is interesting is how flippantly you dismiss a world wide crime committed over decades by at the least hundreds of very “Christian” people in positions of trust. Im sure if these cases were about non-christian religions it would be mentioned in every second post quite triumphantly.

I don’t really care what they believe in and where they come from, as long as they are prepared to integrate and contribute.

We grant citizenship regularly, I don’t know why we don’t revoke it more often. Fkwits come in all shapes, sizes, colours, and nationalities. Swap out the fkwits, imported and domestic, for someone who wants to make a go of it. Whether it’s an ‘Aussie’ Mully or some wannabe Syrian fighter, piss them off. Give their place to someone looking to abide by Pax Australis and dump the dregs in the offshore centres or on some dedicated Terra Nullius island away from everyone else and they can make their own way.

justin heywood10:24 am 04 Mar 14

NoImRight said :

[

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…..

..and don’t forget the Crusades!

It’s a sign of how thin your argument is when you have to go back 40 years to find comparisons, and even then they’re not really comparable.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

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

Boris Johnson wrote about this yesterday:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26413024

Any of you bleeding hearts prepared to call Boris Johnson a bigot like you called me a bigot?

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…..

dungfungus said :

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

Boris Johnson wrote about this yesterday:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26413024

CraigT said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

…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.

Actually, it is your ethical duty to do no harm that can be avoided and to do what good that can be offered.

Our support for Indonesia/Israel/Saudi Arabia is unethical. Indonesia is by far the worst – we (but mostly, the ALP) conspired with Indonesia to invade East TImor and slaughter 30% o fits inhabitants, just as we are now conspiring with them again – by virtue of our silent acquiescence – to commit genocide in West Papua.

So when and where have we persecuted Muslims IN AUSTRALIA ?

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

CraigT said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

…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.

Actually, it is your ethical duty to do no harm that can be avoided and to do what good that can be offered.

Our support for Indonesia/Israel/Saudi Arabia is unethical. Indonesia is by far the worst – we (but mostly, the ALP) conspired with Indonesia to invade East TImor and slaughter 30% o fits inhabitants, just as we are now conspiring with them again – by virtue of our silent acquiescence – to commit genocide in West Papua.

Not that Howeph cares about that.

For some reason, genuine Genocide is not important. More important is labelling the people that have shown you to be ignorant and mistaken, to be bigots.

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

I posted a serious comment on this thread a week ago. It wasn’t responded to seriously by anyone so I’ve left the thread because the level of debate is silly and pointless. You shouldn’t try and mistake that for support for anything other people write here.

bundah said :

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

Since when was drawing attention to a 2011 report from the NCTC detailing the background of those involved in terrorist attacks racist?

Are these people even still posting? Maybe they got sick of threads that cover the same old ground over and over.

justin heywood8:15 pm 03 Mar 14

howeph said :

And to be blunt, my argument does hold the moral high ground. I’m not the one advocating the indefinite imprisonment of innocents in the most horrible locations our government can find.

See, you talk about the ‘simple slogans’ of your morally inferior ideological opponents, and then you roll out some bumper sticker jingles of your own.
Who is advocating indefinite detention? My understanding is that they are free to return home if they choose to do so.
Innocent? Did they not choose (and pay) to come here?
And ‘horrible’ locations? But they are fleeing persecution aren’t they?

The Labor/Green ‘let them all come’ strategy resulted in a lot of death and misery, something rarely acknowledged or addressed by your side of the argument. It’s understandable that you would prefer to make much of one death on Manus but not talk about many deaths at sea under a policy you advocate.

I don’t think you have a moral leg to stand on, but I know never to argue with someone who thinks he’s on the side of the angels.

howeph said :

bundah said :

Since when was drawing attention to a 2011 report from the NCTC detailing the background of those involved in terrorist attacks racist?

I was referring to your comment #129.

The fact that there is social unrest in various parts of Europe where some European govts have declared that multiculturalism is a failure and I have accepted that may be the case in no way means i’m racist. Personally I don’t give a shit whether one is black.white,gay,straight,muslim.christian etc so long as you don’t try and indoctrinate me to your style and belief system we’ll get on fine.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

…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.

Actually, it is your ethical duty to do no harm that can be avoided and to do what good that can be offered.

Our support for Indonesia/Israel/Saudi Arabia is unethical. Indonesia is by far the worst – we (but mostly, the ALP) conspired with Indonesia to invade East TImor and slaughter 30% o fits inhabitants, just as we are now conspiring with them again – by virtue of our silent acquiescence – to commit genocide in West Papua.

howeph said :

I’m not the one advocating the indefinite imprisonment of innocents in the most horrible locations our government can find.

Noone is advocating that and it isn’t happening.

What *is* happening is that some people who are after the generous handouts our government makes available *choose* to enter Australia illegally, at which point they are locked up.

At any stage, these people could *choose* to #$@% off back home, but they *choose* to remain in detention instead.

All the choices that have led to this detention have been made by those being detained.

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.

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.

bundah said :

Since when was drawing attention to a 2011 report from the NCTC detailing the background of those involved in terrorist attacks racist?

I was referring to your comment #129.

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

Since when was drawing attention to a 2011 report from the NCTC detailing the background of those involved in terrorist attacks racist?

justin heywood said :

Perhaps it’s because the issue is more complex than the ‘I’m morally superior, everyone who holds an opposing view is a racist bigot’ paradigm that your side of the argument likes to parrot whenever the argument gets a little sticky.

This argument is not “sticky”; it is disgraceful and tragic.

I agree the issue is complex. That is why a successful policy response needs to be nuanced and comprehensive to deal with it. This is not what we see from the racists side of the argument. What we get is:

* simple slogans: “stop the boats”
* simple denigration: they are all “scum”
* simple immoral action: institutionalised horror (i.e. deterrence)

And to be blunt, my argument does hold the moral high ground. I’m not the one advocating the indefinite imprisonment of innocents in the most horrible locations our government can find.

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.

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

And which “race” have I specifically nominated? And while you are answering that one, tell me why what I have said is not a problem for non-Muslim countries?

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

Last throw of the dice: Scream “racism!”.

justin heywood11:16 am 03 Mar 14

howeph said :

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

Perhaps it’s because the issue is more complex than the ‘I’m morally superior, everyone who holds an opposing view is a racist bigot’ paradigm that your side of the argument likes to parrot whenever the argument gets a little sticky.

Remember when JB accused those of you who support the current asylum seeker policies of being racist and lots of you lept to deny it?

http://the-riotact.com/public-forum-whats-wrong-with-abbotts-refugee-policy/116953

BimboGeek, Dilandach, thebrownstreak69, chewy14, neanderthalsis and mossrocket you all denied that your opinions were motivated by racism and I presume don’t consider yourselves as being racist.

Why aren’t you standing up against the out and out racism being espoused by Elf, dungfungus, Masquara, Robertson/Nylex_Clock/CraigT (all actually one person) and to a lesser extent bundah?

Where are you now? Why are you silent?

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.

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

dungfungus said :

If you aren’t already on it, I reckon you and Irish Pete will be on the ASIO watch list after those sprays.

Heh, what about these guys:
http://www.nowness.com/day/2014/2/28/3705/laibach–the-whistleblowers
Reckon they are on it?

That’s a bit too deep for me – I haven’t an artistic bone in my body. I am appealing to all the elitist thinkers to help me out and explain what that video is all about.

They are whistling.

One of them whistle-blows and instead of destroying the pot, he fills it with flowers.

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?

CraigT said :

CraigT said :

Here we go – here’s what at least some of those friendly new-Australian muslims are planning to thanks us for letting them stay in our country:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/protesters-hold-signs-over-at-martin-place-demo/4263384

Isn’t that nice?

Wonderful, isn’t it?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/anti-us-protests-hit-sydney/4263372

All about another (suspected) horrible Islamist terrorist attack in China less than 24 hours ago:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/deadly-china-attack-blamed-on-islamic-separatists-20140302-hvfs7.html

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.

CraigT said :

dungfungus said :

If you aren’t already on it, I reckon you and Irish Pete will be on the ASIO watch list after those sprays.

Heh, what about these guys:
http://www.nowness.com/day/2014/2/28/3705/laibach–the-whistleblowers
Reckon they are on it?

That’s a bit too deep for me – I haven’t an artistic bone in my body. I am appealing to all the elitist thinkers to help me out and explain what that video is all about.

dungfungus said :

If you aren’t already on it, I reckon you and Irish Pete will be on the ASIO watch list after those sprays.

Heh, what about these guys:
http://www.nowness.com/day/2014/2/28/3705/laibach–the-whistleblowers
Reckon they are on it?

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.

You won’t be giving out many prizes – there are a lot of politically correct and ignorant contributors on this blog, not to mention the elitist thinkers.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:31 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.

Source?

CraigT said :

Here we go – here’s what at least some of those friendly new-Australian muslims are planning to thanks us for letting them stay in our country:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/protesters-hold-signs-over-at-martin-place-demo/4263384

Isn’t that nice?

Wonderful, isn’t it?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/anti-us-protests-hit-sydney/4263372

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

The IRA in Northern Ireland engaged in a war of attrition, but also in terrorism. The so-called Loyalist groups like the UVF and UFF engaged almost entirely in terrorism.

There’s a good reason why the IRA won: they were fighting *against* injustice. The UVF/UFF scum were fighting to impose injustice.
But the day the war was won had nothing to do with guns or bombs: it was won the day the entire world saw TV pictures of catholic schoolchildren on their way to school being protected by massive fences and huge crowds of police as despicable protestant thugs spat at them and chucked rocks. That was the day the British government finally abandoned its centuries-old policy of doing anything and everything to crush the Irish.

If you aren’t already on it, I reckon you and Irish Pete will be on the ASIO watch list after those sprays.

There is little truth in what CraigT stated. My own theory of why the UK government negotiated an end to the Troubles is the Barrett sniper rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Armagh_Sniper_%281990%E2%80%9397%29 . But he’s right about the UFF/UVF – no saving graces there. They were also heavily involved in organised crime.

There was injustice in NI the 1960s. By 1997 it was hard to distinguish unjustified discrimination against Catholics from treatment that was entirely justified because of the security situation. But don’t mind me, I was there so what would I know.

As for ASIO watch lists, well I held the same opinions in the 1990s and worked in a secure central British Government department in London. MI5 obviously didn’t think I was a risk. It was almost funny to go “home” on holidays to NI and sup with convicted terrorists, then go back to work in London. Either MI5 hadn’t a clue what they were doing or they were very good judges of character. Amazed neither they nor the IRA ever tried to tap me for intel either.

IP

Here we go – here’s what at least some of those friendly new-Australian muslims are planning to thanks us for letting them stay in our country:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/protesters-hold-signs-over-at-martin-place-demo/4263384

Isn’t that nice?

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.

Here we go – another day, another example of peace-loving muslims being a credit to their country:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/02/05/43/stab-attack-kills-27-at-china-rail-station

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.

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

The IRA in Northern Ireland engaged in a war of attrition, but also in terrorism. The so-called Loyalist groups like the UVF and UFF engaged almost entirely in terrorism.

There’s a good reason why the IRA won: they were fighting *against* injustice. The UVF/UFF scum were fighting to impose injustice.
But the day the war was won had nothing to do with guns or bombs: it was won the day the entire world saw TV pictures of catholic schoolchildren on their way to school being protected by massive fences and huge crowds of police as despicable protestant thugs spat at them and chucked rocks. That was the day the British government finally abandoned its centuries-old policy of doing anything and everything to crush the Irish.

If you aren’t already on it, I reckon you and Irish Pete will be on the ASIO watch list after those sprays.

IrishPete said :

The IRA in Northern Ireland engaged in a war of attrition, but also in terrorism. The so-called Loyalist groups like the UVF and UFF engaged almost entirely in terrorism.

There’s a good reason why the IRA won: they were fighting *against* injustice. The UVF/UFF scum were fighting to impose injustice.
But the day the war was won had nothing to do with guns or bombs: it was won the day the entire world saw TV pictures of catholic schoolchildren on their way to school being protected by massive fences and huge crowds of police as despicable protestant thugs spat at them and chucked rocks. That was the day the British government finally abandoned its centuries-old policy of doing anything and everything to crush the Irish.

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.

“some professions don%u2019t even have to rort, they just apply” (for 457 visas) – IP
I noticed this when my father was in hospital recently. The nursing care and general hygiene practices were simply appalling – and this was in the Infections ward. It appeared far too difficult to administer regular medication (some of which was unrelated to the reason for the admission) in a timely fashion, the windows were filthy (we took to them ourselves with detergent wipes), the ‘cleaners’ NEVER bothered to move things or clean under the beds, and there was generally plenty of time to die (if, say, you couldn’t breathe properly) before staff responded to nurse call buttons. Not to mention complete neglect of a pre-existing condition that became very bad due to a poor decision made by a doctor early on in the stay. No attempt was made to rectify that problem which continued to decline. In fact family and patient were told that there was no specialist in that field at TCH, though they stated that there was one at Calvary (gee that helped – not). I was appalled and shocked at the amount of advocacy needed on a daily basis just to get basics attended to. God help anyone who has no family and is in TCH. If the ACT Govt thinks that 457 visas are a solution, they should think again.

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check on the patient – its pulse is still weak.

I went to school with people who later were imprisoned for terrorism (including murders), and I have drunk tea with people who have been in prison for terrorism (including murders).

There really is no such thing as a terrorist. “Terrorist” is an insult, a derogatory, pejorative and subjective term. That’s all. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, according to many people at the time. Martin McGuiness, the current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, was a terrorist. The world is littered with former terrorists who are now legitimate political leaders, whether because they won or because they abandoned violence.

I have my own working definition of a terrorist, one that I believe works well and is not subject to subjective, political, bias. It is someone who uses “terror” (or fear) as a weapon because they do not have the military capability to win a conventional military campaign. I would exclude organisations and people who only target the military (and similar) in wars of attrition – the terror needs to be being inflicted on civilians.

It sounds bad, but in certain circumstances it might be justifiable (well, to some people) if the ends justify the means. Generally, though, I would think it is a despicable strategy. The IRA in Northern Ireland engaged in a war of attrition, but also in terrorism. The so-called Loyalist groups like the UVF and UFF engaged almost entirely in terrorism.

Contrary to the belief of most Americans and a lot of Australians, terrorism was not invented on 11th September 2001. It has been around for decades, maybe centuries, and the USA and Australia have supported it in many places in the world throughout history, and probably still do.

IP

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?

There is an absolute shitload of info on terrorist groups online so go your hardest.

This is the skinny from a report from the National Counterterrorism Center highlighting terrorist activities for the year 2011. Draw your own conclusions.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

milkman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

milkman said :

Nylex_Clock said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

It suprises me how often people parrot crap from other websites without actually going to the freely available source.

Very weird that you are commenting about yourself in this post.

As usual, another waste of time post from CGN that can’t be substantiated. Yawn.

Can you post a screen shot?

You’re looking at it.

Codders111 said :

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.

LRA and Brevik are nutcase outliers. And I lump the Oranges in with the IRA. The Ku Klux Klan as far as I am aware, while nutcases, haven’t committed mass killings, and haven’t lynched anyone in decades. None of these examples are anything like the many, many proscribed and active Jihadist terrorist organisations that our government is trying to protect us from. Thankfully, successfully other than Bali. It’s actually wrong to state that extremists are a small proportion of Islamists. They are actually frighteningly close to mainstream.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Nice subliminal coke advertising in the photo (also…why don’t these candlelight vigilantes get with the times…stop producing carbon and use solar-powered torches?)

bearlikesbeer11:42 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.

“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

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:34 am 01 Mar 14

milkman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

milkman said :

Nylex_Clock said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

It suprises me how often people parrot crap from other websites without actually going to the freely available source.

Very weird that you are commenting about yourself in this post.

As usual, another waste of time post from CGN that can’t be substantiated. Yawn.

Can you post a screen shot?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

milkman said :

Nylex_Clock said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

It suprises me how often people parrot crap from other websites without actually going to the freely available source.

Very weird that you are commenting about yourself in this post.

As usual, another waste of time post from CGN that can’t be substantiated. Yawn.

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.

Looks like the rats have definitely overtaken the ship on this thread.

It must be nice to live life where you can slot people into an easy bucket. He’s a leftie, he’s right, you’re a muslim so you must hate women and want to blow up a school bus.

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. The ‘asianisation of Australia’ they called it. And hey, things turned out alright didn’t they. ‘They don’t assimilate’ they said. Well I call bullshit on that now.

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.

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!

Nylex_Clock said :

Elf said :

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.

The problem about that is that it is not politically-correct to recognise that there are differences between different cultures and that some cultures are undesirable. We can’t recognise that some religious persuasions are even more undesirable than others. We have to pretend all cultures and religions are the same, so we can’t have an immigration policy that discriminates on the basis you suggest.

Instead, we have an immigration policy that discriminates on the basis of education and wealth.
People with neither are usually unable to obtain a visa.
Mostly, this keeps the riff-raff out, which is why they have to resort to coming here illegally.

I don’t want to ruin your day but I tend to agree with you.

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.

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…

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.

Elf said :

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.

The problem about that is that it is not politically-correct to recognise that there are differences between different cultures and that some cultures are undesirable. We can’t recognise that some religious persuasions are even more undesirable than others. We have to pretend all cultures and religions are the same, so we can’t have an immigration policy that discriminates on the basis you suggest.

Instead, we have an immigration policy that discriminates on the basis of education and wealth.
People with neither are usually unable to obtain a visa.
Mostly, this keeps the riff-raff out, which is why they have to resort to coming here illegally.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd11:26 pm 27 Feb 14

milkman said :

Nylex_Clock said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

It suprises me how often people parrot crap from other websites without actually going to the freely available source.

Very weird that you are commenting about yourself in this post.

Nylex_Clock said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

It suprises me how often people parrot crap from other websites without actually going to the freely available source.

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.

howeph said :

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.

I guess they shouldn’t have gone there then.

Seeing as they haven’t entered Indonesia directly from wherever it is they are pretending to be refugees from, Indonesia should be treating them simply as illegal immigrants, just as we should be.

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.

Mysteryman said :

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.

Please provide links or references to those commentaries.

Also you said “most”. What did the others say and why did you discard them?

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?

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.

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.

Codders111 said :

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.

Completely false.

Stormfront Org7:58 am 27 Feb 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Disregarding your past lies…

Source? Prove my “lies” to be incorrect. Can’t? Thought so.

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. And I would argue that those asylum seekers who have had the ability to pass through many countries to get to Indonesia are far less in need of our assistance than many others through the world.

Assuming we have a limited number able to be accepted and limited resources (which I don’t think any sane person could argue with), then shouldn’t our aim be to get the most bang for our buck?

Mysteryman 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.

That’s simply not correct. Being party to the refugee convention is not the test for whether their freedom or life is threatened. Additionally many of these people have passed through other territories before arriving at Indonesia.

Codders111 said :

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).

A treaty IS an agreement. By definition that’s what it is, and that’s why states CHOOSE to agree to it or not.

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. Really though, I don’t think it changes much. Whether or not there’s a legal obligation to adhere to treaties, I think it sets a bad precedent to ratify and then completely disregard them. Are we going to dismiss all treaties concluded before the VCLT (including important ones like the North Atlantic Treaty, ANZUS treaty, UN Charter, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Bretton Woods Agreement, among others) as non-binding?

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.

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

The act is a 400 page document, hence my suggesting you need to be a little more specific. So can you tell me which section of the act is being broken, or how the Refugee Convention fails to apply?

Dear feminist, you, as well as other lefties, seem to have huge amount of time on your hands to comment on RiotAct pages. That is something that I don’t have. So you can find relevant Section, you know that you can search pdf document, don’t you?

So based on that logic of proof I can say the organisation you claim to somehow represent is famous for drowning puppies and hanging around primary school yards with bags of lollies. Want proof? Heres a link http://www.google.com.au find the bit that says Im wrong you proud caucasian you.

howeph said :

P.S. Anyone notice how Robertson/Nylex_Clock went silent after being found out, .

Imagine taking a couple of days off from reading Riot Ac t!!! Fancy!

Seeing as there have been a sum total of ZERO posts by “Robertson” in this thread, it is a complete mystery just what it is exactly that you imagine you have “found out”.

Pretty much on a par with your ludicrous justification for the Greens’ non-sensical policy of setting a quota in order to eliminate the queue. Duh!.
We already have a quota – we already take many thousands of *genuine* refugees from actual refugee camps every year. People come here illegally by boat in order to abuse the asylum system for the very simple reason that they will *never* qualify for refugee resettlement any other way, because they are not refugees. They are liars scamming the system, and if you want Tony Abbott in charge for 3-4 years longer that would otherwise be necessary, carry on with your encouragement for the scammers, because the majority of Australians recognise scammers when they see them, and they know that current ALP policy failed spectacularly, and the Greens (who should be worrying abotu the environment, but arent as a result of having been hijacked by ex-communists) have a plan that is even dumber than the ALPs.

John Howard stopped illegal immigration dead in its tracks. We need to provide a guarantee of non-resettlement to any non-genuine refugees (didn’t arrive here directly). So that when they go back to their home country for a visit, they have no right to return here.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

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.

Gosh, so simple even a child could understand it. But could a *leftie* with its blinkers set to maximum understand it? That’s the question…

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.

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.

That’s simply not correct. Being party to the refugee convention is not the test for whether their freedom or life is threatened. Additionally many of these people have passed through other territories before arriving at Indonesia.

Codders111 said :

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).

A treaty IS an agreement. By definition that’s what it is, and that’s why states CHOOSE to agree to it or not.

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.

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

The act is a 400 page document, hence my suggesting you need to be a little more specific. So can you tell me which section of the act is being broken, or how the Refugee Convention fails to apply?

Dear feminist, you, as well as other lefties, seem to have huge amount of time on your hands to comment on RiotAct pages. That is something that I don’t have. So you can find relevant Section, you know that you can search pdf document, don’t you?

Why are you making assertions you can’t back up? You keep invoking the Migration Act, but don’t even know what it says.

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).

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd12:00 pm 26 Feb 14

Stormfront Org said :

howeph said :

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
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?

“Detective” howeph, look up, name change was done only under a month ago. I was never “hiding” and I don’t lie. Comments under old name still exist, so don’t make things up about my name changes.
And I do stand by my claims in my comments about your rallies.
Were you in Civic on Sunday at lunch? No? Then you’ll notice that, unless police cleaned up the streets prior, there was noticeable reduction in beggars and hobos. Disprove me otherwise. You will tell me that there is no “petty cash tin” for rent-a -crowd? LMAO.

And no, I will only ever have one account, unlike the people you’d stated.

Disregarding your past lies, with your current username, nothing posted by you can be taken seriously.

Stormfront Org8:12 am 26 Feb 14

Grrrr said :

The act is a 400 page document, hence my suggesting you need to be a little more specific. So can you tell me which section of the act is being broken, or how the Refugee Convention fails to apply?

Dear feminist, you, as well as other lefties, seem to have huge amount of time on your hands to comment on RiotAct pages. That is something that I don’t have. So you can find relevant Section, you know that you can search pdf document, don’t you?

Stormfront Org8:08 am 26 Feb 14

howeph said :

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
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?

“Detective” howeph, look up, name change was done only under a month ago. I was never “hiding” and I don’t lie. Comments under old name still exist, so don’t make things up about my name changes.
And I do stand by my claims in my comments about your rallies.
Were you in Civic on Sunday at lunch? No? Then you’ll notice that, unless police cleaned up the streets prior, there was noticeable reduction in beggars and hobos. Disprove me otherwise. You will tell me that there is no “petty cash tin” for rent-a -crowd? LMAO.

And no, I will only ever have one account, unlike the people you’d stated.

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.”

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!

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.

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.

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

The act is a 400 page document, hence my suggesting you need to be a little more specific. So can you tell me which section of the act is being broken, or how the Refugee Convention fails to apply?

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.

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….

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.

Stormfront Org12:45 pm 25 Feb 14

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.

Stormfront Org said :

With all due respect, Jazz, I like you style of moderation, but please do not let comments with attacks on personal individuals (last few amongst some members) spoil the subject. People should be discussing the issue, not spoil the thread with nonsense attacks upon each other (both sides).

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 responses.

Stormfront Org said :

Grrrr said :

Stormfront Org said :

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal.

So can you tell us which law is being broken?

Is this you, Milne or Young?
https://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/air/airport.htm

You can read requirements for entry there.

Sorry, I am not sure what you’re asking about, but I suspect you’re barking up the wrong tree.

You said a law was being broken, but the URLs you’ve provided don’t mention any laws. 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?

Stormfront Org11:00 am 25 Feb 14

With all due respect, Jazz, I like you style of moderation, but please do not let comments with attacks on personal individuals (last few amongst some members) spoil the subject. People should be discussing the issue, not spoil the thread with nonsense attacks upon each other (both sides).

voytek3 said :

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

voytek3 said :

Roundhead89 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.

It is hilariously funny that you legit believe the “boats have stopped”. There are so few it isn’t even worth a paragraph on page five of a local newspaper – this non issue was the soul “issue” used to win votes from unintelligent morons just like yourself. You are a living, breathing joke and it disgusts me that human waste like you are allowed to vote. By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”. The vast majority of “welfare” abusers are Australian born and bred scum just like yourself. Get a vasectomy.

Voytek3, you are a bleeping bleep and you should go and bleep yourself.
In the absence of any meaningful moderation from RA, I’ve had to do it myself…

Totally agree Porker that was a tirade i’d expect from a nasty lowlife piece of shit. Voytek3 must be sooo proud of himself….

Are you that sensitive that you get offended by a comment pointing out facts merely because it has mild language? Typical sheltered insular Canberra moron. Kill yourself.

Look out, we’ve got a genuine hard man here.

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

voytek3 said :

Roundhead89 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.

It is hilariously funny that you legit believe the “boats have stopped”. There are so few it isn’t even worth a paragraph on page five of a local newspaper – this non issue was the soul “issue” used to win votes from unintelligent morons just like yourself. You are a living, breathing joke and it disgusts me that human waste like you are allowed to vote. By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”. The vast majority of “welfare” abusers are Australian born and bred scum just like yourself. Get a vasectomy.

Voytek3, you are a bleeping bleep and you should go and bleep yourself.
In the absence of any meaningful moderation from RA, I’ve had to do it myself…

Totally agree Porker that was a tirade i’d expect from a nasty lowlife piece of shit. Voytek3 must be sooo proud of himself….

Are you that sensitive that you get offended by a comment pointing out facts merely because it has mild language? Typical sheltered insular Canberra moron. Kill yourself.

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!

MERC600 said :

Geez I’m glad I’m out of this little debate.
DungFungus if you start kickin dust one way or another; your on your lonesome son.

I’ve always been on my lonesome on this blog. Thanks for thinking of me though.

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.

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.

The Refugee Convention is law in Australia. As a treaty to which Australia is a party, it is binding and should be performed in good faith (VCLT article 26). Parties can’t use domestic law to justify the failure to perform a treaty (VCLT article 27).

HiddenDragon10:29 pm 24 Feb 14

chewy14
3:30 pm, 24 Feb 14 ….”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?”

Precisely – without a willingness to embrace unpalatable measures, 30,000 or any other number which might be put forward, is about as meaningful as the many other “targets” which politicians are fond of announcing.

CraigT said :

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.

It is obvious that you know nothing about Laws and the law. You really couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

You can say “it is illegal full stop” till the cows come home but that doesn’t make it correct.

As I said, almost anything is legal, even killing someone, if it is ‘justified, authorised or excused by law’. That is a basic legal principle that any first year law student (hell, probably many high school students) could explain to you.
.
And just out of interest: The UN Convention is law. It is however not a Law. Whereas the Migration Act is a Law, but it could be argued that it is not law. There is an important difference even though the two are interconnected.

.

Darkfalz said :

I have strong suspicions “Reza” was first and foremost amongst the group who threatened to rape the wives, sisters and daughters of the guards – which (as well as his own belligerence) is why he was singled out for special attention from the probably inadequately trained or restrained guards.

Let’s not forget it was Labor and the Greens who sent over 1000 people to the bottom of the ocean, it was Labor’s idea to put them there on Manus under that particular agreement, and it is Labor who is ridiculously claiming to have stopped the boats by having done so while at the same time trying to score political points on the riot and death – can they point to what change in policy by the Liberals on Manus “caused” this riot and response? Can anyone?

The Libs hard line as well as excellent work by our Navy is the only reason the number of “asylum seekers” (rioters) on Manus isn’t double or triple by now. No doubt though that those there realise the jig is up – although remember, they can return home any time they like rather than clinging to the people smuggler’s promise they’d get asylum, free money and a free house in Australia.

A candle light vigil for one person who was killed executing a riot against armed guards he attacked – that’s rich. Where was GetUp when they were drowning by the boat load lead by the promises of milk and honey?

Good post.

Imagine raising up onto a pedestal a violent thug who instigated a riot?
What kind of people would be so immoral to do such a thing?

Answer: The socialist-non-taxpaying-ratbags.

Darkfalz said :

Stormfront Org said :

Many of so-called “refugees” (boat people) do return back to their native country for a holiday not long after getting their Aussie passport.

I’ve heard this also. This government should quietly cancel their visa while they are away.

Absolutely.
Imagine pretending to be a “refugee” and then returning to your country of origin for holidays, as these scumbags invariably do.
That particular rort was what TPVs were 100% effective against.
And, boy, did all these “poor refugees who just want a bit of protection” *hate* TPVs, eh?

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.

Geez I’m glad I’m out of this little debate.
DungFungus if you start kickin dust one way or another; your on your lonesome son.

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)

Stormfront Org said :

Many of so-called “refugees” (boat people) do return back to their native country for a holiday not long after getting their Aussie passport.

I’ve heard this also. This government should quietly cancel their visa while they are away.

I have strong suspicions “Reza” was first and foremost amongst the group who threatened to rape the wives, sisters and daughters of the guards – which (as well as his own belligerence) is why he was singled out for special attention from the probably inadequately trained or restrained guards.

Let’s not forget it was Labor and the Greens who sent over 1000 people to the bottom of the ocean, it was Labor’s idea to put them there on Manus under that particular agreement, and it is Labor who is ridiculously claiming to have stopped the boats by having done so while at the same time trying to score political points on the riot and death – can they point to what change in policy by the Liberals on Manus “caused” this riot and response? Can anyone?

The Libs hard line as well as excellent work by our Navy is the only reason the number of “asylum seekers” (rioters) on Manus isn’t double or triple by now. No doubt though that those there realise the jig is up – although remember, they can return home any time they like rather than clinging to the people smuggler’s promise they’d get asylum, free money and a free house in Australia.

A candle light vigil for one person who was killed executing a riot against armed guards he attacked – that’s rich. Where was GetUp when they were drowning by the boat load lead by the promises of milk and honey?

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

Labor/Greens’ policies caused over 1000 asylum seeker deaths.

Light a candle to that.

That would be sourced from the ever-reliable Scott Morrison?

Diggety, how many asylum seekers have drowned since the change of government? I’ll give you a clue, you’ll need quite a lot candles.

IP

The current policies have already saved many lives.

Labor/Greens were warned their policies would result in deaths, but they stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled “racist!”

Irrational, irresponsible and lacking compassion.

Oh, and anybody ticking the box gets a compulsory house guest who cannot be evicted until he is off welfare.

Considering 75% of them are still on welfare 4 years after arriving, I imagine some of these commies’ wives will have something to say about whether ticking that box is going to happen….

chewy14 said :

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.

I’ve got an idea, Chewy – we get the ATO to add a checkbox to everybody’s income tax forms, which says,
“Tick here to pay the optional voluntary 3% open border levy”.

Then, the ATO can collect the funding and then set the level that can be covered from those volutary tax receipts.

How does that sound?

Please if you burn your hands with the candle don’t blame the Australian Navy this time.

IrishPete said :

I’m staying out of the debate with the neo-Nazis and their fellow-travellers.

You mean you’re staying out of the correction you commies are receiving at the hands of people who know what the law says?

That’s a convincing approach.

howeph said :

Nylex_Clock said :

I checked the thread you refer to and your unfactual and confused argument was demolished by “Robertson”:

“Thanks for putting Howeph’s nonsense to rest.
Nobody has “a right” to break Australia’s laws.
The convention quite obviously recognises that when it says these people are here unlawfully.

So you’re pretending to be someone else and relying on quoting yourself yadayadyada.

So you lost the argument and now want to try diversion. You need a shrink.

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.

Howeph – being a cheapskate freeloader, I can’t reply to email through RiotACT… Others have tracked me down, so it can’t be impossible!.

IP

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.

That confusion is actually quite funny. No doubt it will feed someone’s conspiracy theory that the ABC are all closet Greens. Or out of the closet Greens.

Ignoring the transcription errors, the strident interviewing shows that The Greens don’t get an easy ride from the ABC. And what a clever or unintentional pun, when Christine Milne says that the Mediterranean has waves that go up and down!

I’m staying out of the debate with the neo-Nazis and their fellow-travellers. I think it’s time to let the RiotACT expire quietly until its owners can get it properly active again. I think we’re only delaying the inevitable by continuing to post on old threads. RiotACT – RIP and DNR, though cryogenics may be appropriate.

Hasta la vista baby. (or hasta la victoria siempre?)

IP

Pork Hunt said :

voytek3 said :

Roundhead89 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.

It is hilariously funny that you legit believe the “boats have stopped”. There are so few it isn’t even worth a paragraph on page five of a local newspaper – this non issue was the soul “issue” used to win votes from unintelligent morons just like yourself. You are a living, breathing joke and it disgusts me that human waste like you are allowed to vote. By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”. The vast majority of “welfare” abusers are Australian born and bred scum just like yourself. Get a vasectomy.

Voytek3, you are a bleeping bleep and you should go and bleep yourself.
In the absence of any meaningful moderation from RA, I’ve had to do it myself…

Totally agree Porker that was a tirade i’d expect from a nasty lowlife piece of shit. Voytek3 must be sooo proud of himself….

Nylex_Clock said :

I checked the thread you refer to and your unfactual and confused argument was demolished by “Robertson”:

“Thanks for putting Howeph’s nonsense to rest.
Nobody has “a right” to break Australia’s laws.
The convention quite obviously recognises that when it says these people are here unlawfully.

So you’re pretending to be someone else and relying on quoting yourself in order to support your argument.

Your credibility is now zero.

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.

Stormfront Org12:20 pm 24 Feb 14

Grrrr said :

Stormfront Org said :

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal.

So can you tell us which law is being broken?

Is this you, Milne or Young?
https://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/air/airport.htm

You can read requirements for entry there.

As far as putting illegal asylum seekers in detention:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide

Many of so-called “refugees” (boat people) do return back to their native country for a holiday not long after getting their Aussie passport.

Grrrr said :

Stormfront Org said :

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal.

So can you tell us which law is being broken?

The Migration Act 1958 clearly outlines the definition of an “unlawful non-citizen”. Read it.

Grrrr said :

Stormfront Org said :

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal.

So can you tell us which law is being broken?

The Migration Act 1958.

Stormfront Org said :

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal.

So can you tell us which law is being broken?

HiddenDragon11:51 am 24 Feb 14

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.

howeph said :

Robertson (oops I mean Nylex_Clock) we have had this debate before starting here…. And you lost.

I checked the thread you refer to and your unfactual and confused argument was demolished by “Robertson”:

“Thanks for putting Howeph’s nonsense to rest.
Nobody has “a right” to break Australia’s laws.
The convention quite obviously recognises that when it says these people are here unlawfully.

And to answer your further question,
http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/refugee_en.pdf
“It is widely accepted that the prohibition of refoulement is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the Refugee Convention must respect the principle of
non-refoulement”.”

So there you have it. Breaches of Australian law are recognised by the UN. We’ve signed a convention that says we won’t punish people for it. That doesn’t legalise it.

howeph said :

Nylex_Clock said :

I take it from that that you are still in denial of the very basic and unassailable fact that under Australian law, it is our Migration Act that defines how a person enters Australia legally.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/65onshore-processing-illegal-maritime-arrivals.htm

“Illegal maritime arrivals”.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

“Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

Now, do you and your leftoid buddies … BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Robertson (oops I mean Nylex_Clock) we have had this debate before starting here…. And you lost.

You know what you are saying is untrue. Your willful lying and hiding of your online identity is unbelievable.

It says a lot about the “strength” of your position if you have to lie, not only about the facts of the issue, but also about who you are so that you can distance yourself from your previous comments.

The UN is lying. The Australian government is lying. Is that it?

I think not.
Howeph, *you* are the liar. You are a deluded leftie refusing to accept reality and encouraging peoplr to break the law and kill themselves at sea, meaning your delusion is both criminal and immoral.

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.

howeph said :

Nylex_Clock said :

I take it from that that you are still in denial of the very basic and unassailable fact that under Australian law, it is our Migration Act that defines how a person enters Australia legally.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/65onshore-processing-illegal-maritime-arrivals.htm

“Illegal maritime arrivals”.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

“Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

Now, do you and your leftoid buddies … BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Robertson (oops I mean Nylex_Clock) we have had this debate before starting here…. And you lost.

You know what you are saying is untrue. Your willful lying and hiding of your online identity is unbelievable.

It says a lot about the “strength” of your position if you have to lie, not only about the facts of the issue, but also about who you are so that you can distance yourself from your previous comments.

So Nylex is Robertson. I’m actually relieved there aren’t two identical personalities on this site.

Roundhead89 said :

So now we hear that the scumbag illegal queue-jumpers have caused embarrassment to Scott Morrison and the usual suspects in Fairfax and the ABC are having a field day.

I would like to see shoot to kill orders being issued to the guards at the detention centres. If any of the illegal asylum seekers complain, protest or riot shoot them dead. In fact, I would like to see all illegal asylum seekers shot dead on sight. That would save us a lot of money and bring the illegal asylum seeker problem to an end once and for all. I am sick and tired of the namby pamby human rights/refugee lobby and perhaps we should line them up against a wall and shoot them as well.

Are you related to Mr Gormsby? (refer Seven Periods With Mr. Gormsby TV series)

Nylex_Clock said :

I take it from that that you are still in denial of the very basic and unassailable fact that under Australian law, it is our Migration Act that defines how a person enters Australia legally.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/65onshore-processing-illegal-maritime-arrivals.htm

“Illegal maritime arrivals”.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

“Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

Now, do you and your leftoid buddies … BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Robertson (oops I mean Nylex_Clock) we have had this debate before starting here…. And you lost.

You know what you are saying is untrue. Your willful lying and hiding of your online identity is unbelievable.

It says a lot about the “strength” of your position if you have to lie, not only about the facts of the issue, but also about who you are so that you can distance yourself from your previous comments.

Stormfront Org9:16 am 24 Feb 14

Glad to see many good comments on here that reflect the feelings of majority of Australian public,not the leftie bs.(thanks to an unbiased moderation).

Yes, it is good to see the reduction of scum entering Australia claiming to be “refugees”, using leaky boats (if you want to kill yourself jumping on such boat for $5K, I have no problem with that). Those causing the riots at the Detention centres- do they deserve to be settled in PNG and Nauru? No, in my opinion. As they will have similar violent behaviour once allowed to be amongst people in developed society.

Although they are to be settled in PNG and on Nauru- Australia will be providing welfare benefits to them .
At least, these “refugees, in fear for their safety back at home” will not be abusing the welfare system here. How many of them , once settled and acquired AUS citizenship, go back home on holidays, for several months at the time, on a yearly or bi-yearly basis?And bringing all their cousins and other relatives in huge numbers? Plenty around.
In such cases, their false claims of “fear of execution if returned” back home shall be re-assessed and their citizenship void. Sure, if there was a change of regime and their homeland has democracy, I then have no problem. But, atm, too many fake “refugees” roam the streets already.

All of the genuine refugees are going through the UN camps, they should be the priority and are welcome here, putting the “queue jumpers” to the bottom of the list.

Someone mentioned that arriving without a visa is not illegal. What? Did you smoke too much, leftie?

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

Pork Hunt said :

Diggety said :

Labor/Greens’ policies caused over 1000 asylum seeker deaths.

Light a candle to that.

No one in Australia forced anyone in Indonesia to fork out for a passage to Australia in a leaky boat.

I’d say plenty of people in Australia are conspiring to encourage people in Indonesia to try their luck at entering Australia illegally, and I hope the government is using its resources wisely in an attempt to be able to eventually pin charges on these people.

IrishPete said :

Walker said :

Does this make sense?

Yes

Now get off the RiotACT. Your rational input is unwelcome.

I take it from that that you are still in denial of the very basic and unassailable fact that under Australian law, it is our Migration Act that defines how a person enters Australia legally.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/65onshore-processing-illegal-maritime-arrivals.htm

“Illegal maritime arrivals”.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

“Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

Now, do you and your leftoid buddies have the intellectual wherewithal to finally accept that your irrational belief in this regard is utterly incorrect and based on nothing but piolitically-motivated wishful thinking??

Incidentally,
“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with
respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations.”

Paying people smugglers to abuse Australia’s asylum system is clearly contrary to the purpose of the 1951 convention.
People arriving by people smuggler boats should be automatically barred from any ability to claim asylum.
If necessary, this should be established explicitly in Australian legislation so we can once and for all stop wasting time on queue-jumping asylum-shopping cheats.

voytek3 said :

Nylex_Clock said :

voytek3 said :

By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”.

Yet more pathetic leftoid delusion on show.

http://www.ames.net.au/asylum-seeker-program/asylum-seeker-assistance-scheme.html

AMES is not welfare and is not a part of government state or federal.

Yes it is, and, yes it is.

AMES, like the Red Cross and various other organisations are contracted by the government (using taxpayers’ money) to administer a scheme of cash payments (funded by the taxpayer) to illegal entrants who are in the process of abusing the asylum system.

So now we hear that the scumbag illegal queue-jumpers have caused embarrassment to Scott Morrison and the usual suspects in Fairfax and the ABC are having a field day.

I would like to see shoot to kill orders being issued to the guards at the detention centres. If any of the illegal asylum seekers complain, protest or riot shoot them dead. In fact, I would like to see all illegal asylum seekers shot dead on sight. That would save us a lot of money and bring the illegal asylum seeker problem to an end once and for all. I am sick and tired of the namby pamby human rights/refugee lobby and perhaps we should line them up against a wall and shoot them as well.

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

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?

I’m not going to answer this directly, but does everyone realise that turning back the boats means the boat crew get off scot free?

IP

I suppose a piss-weak pun is the best we can expect from you IP.

Walker said :

Does this make sense?

Yes

Now get off the RiotACT. Your rational input is unwelcome.

IP

Diggety said :

Labor/Greens’ policies caused over 1000 asylum seeker deaths.

Light a candle to that.

No one in Australia forced anyone in Indonesia to fork out for a passage to Australia in a leaky boat.

dungfungus said :

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?

I’m not going to answer this directly, but does everyone realise that turning back the boats means the boat crew get off scot free?

IP

Diggety said :

Labor/Greens’ policies caused over 1000 asylum seeker deaths.

Light a candle to that.

That would be sourced from the ever-reliable Scott Morrison?

Diggety, how many asylum seekers have drowned since the change of government? I’ll give you a clue, you’ll need quite a lot candles.

IP

Labor/Greens’ policies caused over 1000 asylum seeker deaths.

Light a candle to that.

Walker said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Walker said :

This latest, there’s reports of people screaming for help and having their throats cut with machetes. Of people that had nothing to do with it just wanting to escape the mayhem, hiding in their rooms yet being hunted down *indiscriminately.*

Indiscriminately.

…and having their hands forced around burning-hot pipes by RAN personnel, too, of course.

Because violent thugs who riot and burn down their detention centre *wouldn’t* lie to you, would they…

So you’ll ignore the reports on the riots, varied sources (not just detainees), on the basis of your political or other predisposition, and call the lot “thugs?”

I would rather believe a lot of things. I would rather believe dungfungus has the right angle on climate change, for instance.

But what you and I prefer to be so, is not always what is, until we reasonably know better.

I grant that genuine trouble makers should be properly dealt with. I’m more or less with you that far as a general concept. But we shouldn’t throw the rest (and worldwide minority intake by the way), out with the bathwater…

Any more than we should tar the entire RAN for the acts of a few (if that’s how it transpires).

Does this make sense?

No

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?

Nylex_Clock said :

Walker said :

This latest, there’s reports of people screaming for help and having their throats cut with machetes. Of people that had nothing to do with it just wanting to escape the mayhem, hiding in their rooms yet being hunted down *indiscriminately.*

Indiscriminately.

…and having their hands forced around burning-hot pipes by RAN personnel, too, of course.

Because violent thugs who riot and burn down their detention centre *wouldn’t* lie to you, would they…

So you’ll ignore the reports on the riots, varied sources (not just detainees), on the basis of your political or other predisposition, and call the lot “thugs?”

I would rather believe a lot of things. I would rather believe dungfungus has the right angle on climate change, for instance.

But what you and I prefer to be so, is not always what is, until we reasonably know better.

I grant that genuine trouble makers should be properly dealt with. I’m more or less with you that far as a general concept. But we shouldn’t throw the rest (and worldwide minority intake by the way), out with the bathwater…

Any more than we should tar the entire RAN for the acts of a few (if that’s how it transpires).

Does this make sense?

So, did any rent-a-crowd morons spray brainless pro-refugee graffitti all over Civic during this vigil; or have they woken up to the fact that it does them no favours after they did it at the love-in at Woden?

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.

IP

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.

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.

IP

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.

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.

Nylex_Clock said :

voytek3 said :

By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”.

Yet more pathetic leftoid delusion on show.

http://www.ames.net.au/asylum-seeker-program/asylum-seeker-assistance-scheme.html

AMES is not welfare and is not a part of government state or federal. Just say “left”, “leftist” or “leftoid” a few more times and keep ignorant and stupid. Its all you are good for.

“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.”

Unfortunately soundbites are not the best way to convey or learn about policies.
http://greens.org.au/safer-pathways
Obviously that policy predates the federal election, because changing policies is a careful and sometimes slow process, not a kneejerk, but the basic principles remain applicable today.

IP

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.

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.

p.s. its not hard to come to Oz temporarily or permanently if you are British or Irish, though it’s a little harder for other Europeans because of the unofficial White Australia policy (which assesses your English language ability, and therefore favours people from certain places). 457 visas are there to be rorted, and some professions don’t even have to rort, they just apply.

IP

voytek3 said :

Roundhead89 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.

It is hilariously funny that you legit believe the “boats have stopped”. There are so few it isn’t even worth a paragraph on page five of a local newspaper – this non issue was the soul “issue” used to win votes from unintelligent morons just like yourself. You are a living, breathing joke and it disgusts me that human waste like you are allowed to vote. By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”. The vast majority of “welfare” abusers are Australian born and bred scum just like yourself. Get a vasectomy.

Voytek3, you are a bleeping bleep and you should go and bleep yourself.
In the absence of any meaningful moderation from RA, I’ve had to do it myself…

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

Walker said :

This latest, there’s reports of people screaming for help and having their throats cut with machetes. Of people that had nothing to do with it just wanting to escape the mayhem, hiding in their rooms yet being hunted down *indiscriminately.*

Indiscriminately.

…and having their hands forced around burning-hot pipes by RAN personnel, too, of course.

Because violent thugs who riot and burn down their detention centre *wouldn’t* lie to you, would they…

IrishPete said :

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? :

Ah, so only 900 people drwoned at sea as a result of the lefty obsession with encouraging illegal immigration.

That’s OK then. I guess you and Koresh do feel proud.

voytek3 said :

By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”.

Yet more pathetic leftoid delusion on show.

http://www.ames.net.au/asylum-seeker-program/asylum-seeker-assistance-scheme.html

Walker said :

This doesn’t make sense. If you think it’s wonderful we’re relegating enforcement to a country that’s well known high up on the ranks of physical and sexual violence and other problems, you need to reconsider. Plus the camp already has a bad history.

These lawless Iranians chose to employ the laguage of violence to express their wishes.
When it happens in Australia, we let them burn down their comfortable accomodation and the taxpayer promptly rebuilds it, complete all the latest mod-cons including the on-going costs of providing them with internet access so they can continue stirring up ever more trouble, much of it at the instigation of scumbag lawyers with their noses deep in the cashed-up trough of the fake-refugee industry.

At Manus, the local authorities engaged with them in their chosen form of speech- violence. This is clearly the language they understand and the one they chose. They asked for it, they got it. If they don’t want to be clubbed about the head by soldiers, police, and citizen volunteers, they shouldn’t start violent, destructive trouble in the first place. If only *our* society was still geared up to providing a similarly appropriate response.

I predict a limp-wristed self-hating response to this by the Australian authorities, and and a return to bending over backwards to reward lawless violent foreign thugs with the fruit of Australian taxpayers’ hard work and honest labour. More’s the pity.

By some of these measures we should be sending New Zealanders to Manus.

Roundhead89 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.

It is hilariously funny that you legit believe the “boats have stopped”. There are so few it isn’t even worth a paragraph on page five of a local newspaper – this non issue was the soul “issue” used to win votes from unintelligent morons just like yourself. You are a living, breathing joke and it disgusts me that human waste like you are allowed to vote. By the way, deadshit – the vast majority of visas are subject to what is called a “Newly Arrived Residency Waiting Period” – a two year wait from either date of arrival or grant of permanent residency – whatever comes first before they can even test their eligibility for “welfare”. The vast majority of “welfare” abusers are Australian born and bred scum just like yourself. Get a vasectomy.

Queen_of_the_Bun2:07 pm 22 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

“I am very proud of my consistent opposition to inhumane illegal treatment of asylum seekers under Howard, Gillard, Rudd again briefly and now Abbott. Very very proud.

IP”

I think I stuffed up the quote-editing in that one, so I encourage people to respond to this one instead, or we’ll all drown in italics (bad pun, not intended as a pun).

IP

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.

Nylex_Clock said :

In fact, I’m very glad a bunch of these violent foreign thugs got the kicking they so richly deserve from a country whose law enforcement is clearly less timid than Australia’s.
We let these scum walk all over us. The authorities on Manus decided to take no crap. Good for them.

This doesn’t make sense. If you think it’s wonderful we’re relegating enforcement to a country that’s well known high up on the ranks of physical and sexual violence and other problems, you need to reconsider. Plus the camp already has a bad history.

This latest, there’s reports of people screaming for help and having their throats cut with machetes. Of people that had nothing to do with it just wanting to escape the mayhem, hiding in their rooms yet being hunted down *indiscriminately.*

Indiscriminately.

Richly deserved you say? And you’re glad? Are you sure?

Want to rethink it or wait ’til the investigation reveals more, given that you spent pages on a climate myth busting fact finding lecture series (and a pretty thorough job at that), just recently?

There’s always been a racist xenophobic streak in Australians, and ignorance has never been in short supply. But it does take a very special sort of bastardry – something in which the Liberal and Labor Parties are expert in – to exploit those worst elements of our national character, regardless of the human cost, for purely political gain.

Will there be alcoholic refreshments and kebabs, as per multicultural festival?

We don’t know the circumstances around his death though! This is inappropriate and maudlin.

“I am very proud of my consistent opposition to inhumane illegal treatment of asylum seekers under Howard, Gillard, Rudd again briefly and now Abbott. Very very proud.

IP”

I think I stuffed up the quote-editing in that one, so I encourage people to respond to this one instead, or we’ll all drown in italics (bad pun, not intended as a pun).

IP

Nylex_Clock said :

[
Feeling proud?

I am very proud of my consistent opposition to inhumane illegal treatment of asylum seekers under Howard, Gillard, Rudd again briefly and now Abbott. Very very proud.

IP

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
:

DrKoresh said :

Roundhead89 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.

You are scum,(allegedly) human scum <3 🙂

No, the scum are the people who encouraged 5,000 to drown themselves at sea by advocating defective border enforcement.

Feeling proud?

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

The boats have not stopped. The drownings have not stopped.

Got any evidence/data for those assertions?

No?

Thought not.

As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am a stakeholder in this issue: I do not believe people should be rewarded for thumbing their noses at Australian law by quite deliberately entering AUstralia illegally with a view to manipulating our clearly defective asylum laws.

They are obviously not refugees, they are scammers, cheats and frauds who are essentially stealing from me and my fellow taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the genocide in West Papua goes on – with not a squeak from the hypocritcal and delusional Socialist Rent-a-Crowd who pretend they are the only ones with a moral conscience.

How can you be so right about this issue and so wrong about climate change?

Weatherman said :

I support genuine humanitarian refugee intake, such as from UN run refugee camps.

I think this would be a good approach if the government decides to increase out refugee intake.

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.

ScienceRules8:06 am 22 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

In fact, I’m very glad a bunch of these violent foreign thugs got the kicking they so richly deserve from a country whose law enforcement is clearly less timid than Australia’s.
We let these scum walk all over us. The authorities on Manus decided to take no crap. Good for them.

Nice channeling of Alan Jones there mate.

The fact is that refugees arriving by boat are as legitimate as refugees arriving by any other means. Your incandescent rage notwithstanding, many of us are “taxpayers and citizens and have a stake in the issue” (as if that was relevant). We also think that the behaviour of the Abbot government is appalling, illegal and a blight on humanity.

Previous governments were little better but the current mob of thugs and neocons are an embarrasment to Australia. We can do so much better than this.

In fact, I’m very glad a bunch of these violent foreign thugs got the kicking they so richly deserve from a country whose law enforcement is clearly less timid than Australia’s.
We let these scum walk all over us. The authorities on Manus decided to take no crap. Good for them.

IrishPete said :

The boats have not stopped. The drownings have not stopped.

Got any evidence/data for those assertions?

No?

Thought not.

As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am a stakeholder in this issue: I do not believe people should be rewarded for thumbing their noses at Australian law by quite deliberately entering AUstralia illegally with a view to manipulating our clearly defective asylum laws.

They are obviously not refugees, they are scammers, cheats and frauds who are essentially stealing from me and my fellow taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the genocide in West Papua goes on – with not a squeak from the hypocritcal and delusional Socialist Rent-a-Crowd who pretend they are the only ones with a moral conscience.

Roundhead89 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.

You are scum,(allegedly) human scum <3 🙂

I think that the Refugee Action Committee is not politically neutral. I am wholeheartedly in disagreement with on-shore detention. The reason is because on-shore detention is abused by lawyers who work pro-bono to overturn asylum cases through laws they themselves, as well as what refugee advocates lobbied for, who are more in line with far-left politics, such as encouraging boat journeys which is advocated by the socialist faction of The Greens. It is based on the far-left socialist agenda for open borders. I don’t think that the traumatisation and drowning of children tagged along by others through people smuggling syndicates is acceptable. Several countries that are UN refugee convention signatories are bypassed, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan and Tajikistan. It is not genuine humanitarian refugee intake.

I support genuine humanitarian refugee intake, such as from UN run refugee camps. Not asylum seekers arriving to Australian moorings without documentation. Though it is claimed that 90% of boat people are genuine refugees. It’s disingenuous & biased as it depends upon the basis of which refugee status was granted. The UNHCR Handbook for asylum seekers specifies in Part B that if there’s no documentation, benefit of the doubt is a preferred option if the asylum claim seems credible. One part actually specifies it’s “frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt” because claimants can’t always prove their case.

I don’t think that the traumatisation and drowning of children tagged along by others through people smuggling syndicates is acceptable.

“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

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.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.