24 July 2013

The imagery of asylum seeker politics

| Barcham
Join the conversation
116

Johnboy just sent me this interesting story by The Conversation about the imagery used in Rudd’s anti-asylum seeker campaign.

Worth a look, even if just to remind yourself to remain skeptical about what images you are shown.

Woman

Worth a thousand words: the imagery of asylum seeker politics

By Phillip George

The history of Australian asylum seeker policy is studded with iconic if often distressing imagery.

In the most recent addition, officials at Christmas Island filmed and photographed a young Iranian woman, supposedly at the moment when she learnt that she will never be allowed to live in Australia, due to the Rudd government’s recently announced immigration policy.

Department for Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) says the image is intended to be seen around the world as a warning to other asylum seekers of what may happen to them if they catch a “leaky boat” to Australia. It now sits alongside images of “children overboard” and the Tampa affair in Australia’s political narrative.

But is this picture targeted towards overseas or domestic audiences? Who is the government most trying to reach with this undeniably affecting image – the boat people or the vote people?

The Conversation spoke with Professor Phillip George from the School of Media Arts at the University of New South Wales about the history of political images of asylum seekers and their effect on the body politic.


What does the image of the Iranian asylum seeker show us?

It looks like we are seeing a couple of people sitting on a floor weeping, heads in hands, and everything is thrown out of focus. I would probably say that because they were interviewed by a migration worker that it is a legitimate image and we can probably trace down the worker from the Immigration Department.

It would not be as contentious as say the “child overboard” images because we did not know who they were – but this image looks to be an easily verifiable image.

The iconic Tampa image used to boost the Howard government’s re-election campaign. AAP/Wallenius Wilhelmsen

Can we be sure the image depicts what DIAC says it depicts?

I do not think we can be sure. You have come off a plane, a boat, you are jet-lagged, you are tired, you have been travelling – they could just be tired. They could just be emotional because they have finally got to their destination and they could actually be happy. We do not know because the image is thrown out of focus and you cannot read that body posture. Is it posture of despair? Is it relief? Is it exhaustion? Is it “I am really tired of being in this queue and people asking me these stupid questions”?

I would say that you could read a whole range of answers into that including: “I have just landed and I am not going to get into Australia and I am devastated.” It could be all of or none of the above in reading of that image.

Being a crowd photograph, you find someone who is doing what you want and you quickly turn your lens on that subject and you capture it. And it is a very cleverly warped image. I understand that the image has been shown in Indonesia and off-shore so it is advertising the event very quickly.

Is it an attempt to collect a political narrative?

This has been part of a re-election campaign. This is Labor’s Tampa image. I remember speaking to a Labor parliamentarian and they actually called it the “good-ship Tampa” and that it, in a way, a guaranteed re-election of the Howard government. So I think the image-makers are crafting an explicit and powerful, pertinent image for their re-election campaign.

The children overboard saga was used as a political football in the Howard government’s re-election campaign AAP/Defence

How does the image compare to the “children overboard” image and the Tampa image in terms of its political message?

I think for the Tampa image the aerial photograph was a very dynamic, very powerful image of all these people sitting on the decks of boats and that was used by artists all over Australia for years after that.

But what the Tampa image did not do is actually show us human beings’ faces. We never saw the face of humanity on board. We only saw an aerial photograph.

With the “children overboard” we saw a scurrilous image of people in the water. Now were they in the water because the boat was sinking and they were trying to save the children by throwing them overboard? All we saw was a frame of people in the water. We were told what we were seeing there.

The interesting thing we have seen with this image is that it has been thrown out of focus. But if we left that video or camera running and put it in focus we could actually see faces looking up at the camera. It would be interesting to see the before, the after and the during of the taking of that image – so we could see the human faces.

What we do not want to see is the human faces because we get emotional, we have compassion. So the images are thrown out of focus so we have an icon, so we have a representation of someone’s face. But if we let the camera run, if we refocused and watched the image it would tell us a completely different story.

If the boats “keep coming” will the Rudd government or another future government need a tougher or more distressing image? Is this the method of political communication we have now established when it comes to communicating messages about asylum seekers?

I think we can almost guarantee that – particularly as we work into the election campaign, as Rudd ticks off all the boxes for his re-election. The icon of the Tampa and the “children overboard” are iconic images. The timing of this image is also quite exquisite. It is not only telling you that “you cannot come” but it also says, “look at this – we are showing you: you can’t come”.

Phillip George does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation
Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Join the conversation

116
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

2. “Boat People” are in fact MORE likely to be refugees (In 2010-11, 89.6% of “boat people” where found to be genuine refugees) than those who travel here under some sort of other visa and then claim asylum (only 43.7%) I will point out this has now changed my opinion of Mr Rudds PNG solution probably not enough to change my vote, but certainly give me food for thought.

3. In 2011, 34,396 visa security assessments where made, only 45 visas were refused or revoked. At 0.13% the risk is extremely low to the point that there are no security concerns.The article also points out that due to the risk of crossing by boat, plus the more rigorous security and character checks undertaken by this method it is highly unlikely a terrorist would use it to gain entry to Australia.

4. The UN Refugee Convention excludes people who have committed war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or other serious non-political crimes from obtaining refugee status.

and finally

5. Economic status has no bearing on refugee status. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Just some food for thought…

Roundhead89 said :

Don’t be fooled by this, it isn’t an attempt to crack down on illegal asylum seekers it is purely a short-term political fix to neutralise the illegal boat people issue in the western suburbs where the illegal aliens are dumped and causing huge social problems.

Graham Richardson said on Sky News that this “PNG Solution” is only intended to run in the leadup to the election to wedge Tony Abbott. Labor has to constantly appease the Left and their fellow travellers in the refugee/human rights lobby.

The only solution to the illegal asylum seeker issue is the reintroduction of the Howard policies including Temporary Protection Visas and towing back the boats by the Special Forces. Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

Guess who listens to Alan Jones.

Dilandach said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Guys, here is a tip. The people responsible for making outlandish claims are also the ones responsible for citing their sources. These sources must also be factual. I only deal in facts, not debates, its impossible to debate a fact. Please take note.

But only facts that you agree with. Facts you don’t agree with and don’t fit your perception of reality, you just simply ignore. You still haven’t acknowledged that there are detainees raping other detainees, forcing others into acts of self harm and storing weapons for the purpose of escape on Manus Island.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker.

That is just simply your interpretation of migration law together with playing semantics games. No its not illegal to claim asylum it is however illegal to travel to Australia with no valid visa.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To those throwing around the moronic term country shoppers, maybe have a look at what countries are signatorys to the refugee convention and what countries are not. It’s pretty damn clear why a lot of asylum seekers end up making the dangerous trip to Australia.

Seeing you’re so fond of sources and facts instead of outlandish claims, lets see all the countries that are not signatories inbetween Syria and here. Together with those countries that aren’t war zones, distance from original country to nearest stable signatory of the convention versus distance to Australia. So most are recently Syrian, Iranian, Afghan and to make it fair Sri lanka.

C&GM wants sources. Here is something for him to choke on.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/islamists-kill-20-in-nigerias-north/story-fni0xqll-1226687222077

Dilandach said :

That is just simply your interpretation of migration law together with playing semantics games. No its not illegal to claim asylum it is however illegal to travel to Australia with no valid visa..

There are no offence provisions for travelling to Australia without a visa.

The entry is not authorised but it is not a criminal offence. So if it is ‘illegal’ is simply semantics and procedural.

If there is no offence provision that carries any penalty, sanction or possibility of conviction then obviously the government does’t think its a problem.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Guys, here is a tip. The people responsible for making outlandish claims are also the ones responsible for citing their sources. These sources must also be factual. I only deal in facts, not debates, its impossible to debate a fact. Please take note.

But only facts that you agree with. Facts you don’t agree with and don’t fit your perception of reality, you just simply ignore. You still haven’t acknowledged that there are detainees raping other detainees, forcing others into acts of self harm and storing weapons for the purpose of escape on Manus Island.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker.

That is just simply your interpretation of migration law together with playing semantics games. No its not illegal to claim asylum it is however illegal to travel to Australia with no valid visa.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To those throwing around the moronic term country shoppers, maybe have a look at what countries are signatorys to the refugee convention and what countries are not. It’s pretty damn clear why a lot of asylum seekers end up making the dangerous trip to Australia.

Seeing you’re so fond of sources and facts instead of outlandish claims, lets see all the countries that are not signatories inbetween Syria and here. Together with those countries that aren’t war zones, distance from original country to nearest stable signatory of the convention versus distance to Australia. So most are recently Syrian, Iranian, Afghan and to make it fair Sri lanka.

wildturkeycanoe7:02 pm 28 Jul 13

Ben_Dover said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I’m with you on how difficult this issue is. However, if it is such an issue for us, what is it like for other countries in the world?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases#359

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4g

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329089/Woolwich-attack-Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt-death-machetes-suspected-terror-attack.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KtJKNgO_ys

I’m not sure if you misunderstood what I meant, being that illegal boat people are a big problem and how does the rest of the world cope, if they have to, with such a big political issue.
Your examples of the anti-radicalist problems are also issues to deal with world-wide, but is Australia the only country that has such a huge influx of refugees trying to get in illegally and how do other countries cope with the problem?

54-11 – ” It is not a social issue, it is not an immigration issue, it is not a border control issue. It is political, pure and simple.”
Are you kidding yourself that this is a big political stunt? How were Mr. Abbot, Ms.Gillard, Mr. Howard, our current P.M Mr. Rudd or any politician in Australia in ANY way responsible for thousands of people taking suicidal steps to get into our country illegally? The ones that do the right thing, through the right channels I have no problem with. It’s these morons who place not only themselves but also their family’s and children’s lives at risk by going through a “black market” industry that are causing the uproar. There is nothing pure and simple about the difficult, risky and illegal practices these “refugees” are going through. If it is so simple, please let us know how you plan to fix it?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:11 pm 28 Jul 13

Guys, here is a tip. The people responsible for making outlandish claims are also the ones responsible for citing their sources. These sources must also be factual. I only deal in facts, not debates, its impossible to debate a fact. Please take note.

There is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker.

To those throwing around the moronic term country shoppers, maybe have a look at what countries are signatorys to the refugee convention and what countries are not. It’s pretty damn clear why a lot of asylum seekers end up making the dangerous trip to Australia.

bundah said :

This is such a contentious issue and one can only surmise that never shall the twain meet.

Most would be aware that many atrocities have been committed under the banner of religion and in defence of one’s land.The problem is that many fear the worst with the influx and rise in the number of fundamentalists in recent times across the globe and understandably don’t wan’t an identical scenario in this country.

Those who consider that it’s a non-event are clearly repulsed by the inference and feel the need to resort to personal abuse when responding.This merely reflects that they are unable to control their emotions and feel the need to expose their ugly side in response to what they consider is bigotry.

I do not envy those whose responsibility it is to humanely address the border protection issues for they are obviously complex and difficult. While the most recent approach is to get tough it will invariably leave many of the genuine refugees in despair and the problem unresolved.

At the risk of having you dragged down by the usual diehards on this issue like I have been, I would like to commend you for the excellent post regarding the subject of discussion. The world has always been divided by cultural differences, national interests and political ideaolgies.
The “tyranny of distance” and being one of the youngest nations on earth used to separate Australia from this turmoil but now, the geopolitics of emotions has now been globalised.
I have no further comments on this issue.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

kakosi said :

Why do people refer to refugees as “illegal” asylum seekers? How can being a refugee be illegal?

The vast majority of what you might term Illegal immigrants/residents get a visa to Australia, arrive by plane and never leave. Of course people don’t see them arriving and they don’t stand out, so they are invisible.

No western country wants to deal with the issue of continuing wars and conditions that make people flee for their lives. Easier to blame the refugees and score political points.

Because their god is Alan jones. Rather than learn the actual laws they just blindly parrot whatever he says.

And to those saying its such a problem here, it is not. Australia takes a minimal amount of refugees.

CGN, I don’t normally agree with you, but you are dead right on both counts.

It’s just hysteria whipped up by the far right clowns that have far too much influence on the great unwashed. It is not a social issue, it is not an immigration issue, it is not a border control issue. It is political, pure and simple.

Kate Lundy looked as though she was attempting to swallow a turd as she was forced to toe the party line and supported the PNG “solution” the other night …

wildturkeycanoe1:16 pm 28 Jul 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

kakosi said :

Why do people refer to refugees as “illegal” asylum seekers? How can being a refugee be illegal?

The vast majority of what you might term Illegal immigrants/residents get a visa to Australia, arrive by plane and never leave. Of course people don’t see them arriving and they don’t stand out, so they are invisible.

No western country wants to deal with the issue of continuing wars and conditions that make people flee for their lives. Easier to blame the refugees and score political points.

Because their god is Alan jones. Rather than learn the actual laws they just blindly parrot whatever he says.

And to those saying its such a problem here, it is not. Australia takes a minimal amount of refugees.

Okay, to take your own approach, where is your data? All you’ve seemed to be able to do on this debate is ask everybody else to back up their claims whilst calling them ignorant in the same breath, without giving any point of view of your own. After all, this is a debate where opinions count too, without which we’d be all very boring people like you seem to be.
What do you classify as “minimal” amount of refugees, when this government data – http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178607 shows a mammoth increase in annual intake from 2008 onward, compared with the average, except for the spike created during the Iraq conflict. This appears to be a direct correlation to trouble in the middle-east, so probably has weight to all the arguments that the illegal immigrants are of Muslim or associated backgrounds.
Anyone who enters Australia without the correct documentation, or even identification, is an illegal immigrant. Just you try to get to another country without a visa or even a passport and see where it gets you – straight back home. As has long been stipulated in the media [don’t ask for references, this is common knowledge], queue jumpers are trying to bypass the normal system of gaining Australian citizenship by paying a bucket-load of cash to get entry “illegally”. Hence the crisis.
If you have something to say to support boat people instead of just being the statistics police, please feel free to contribute.

Dilandach said :

Where are you going to process these million plus refugees per year in a timely manner?

True to form I know that half a dozen will jump on this because I missed a word. ‘Five’ should be placed in there, not per year.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Because their god is Alan jones. Rather than learn the actual laws they just blindly parrot whatever he says.

Source for that or are you just attempting to generalise anyone that has an opposing view to yours? Asking for sources for each post is just laziness and shows you’re just completely unable to seperate yourself from emotional issues and resort to attempting to cut people off for not citing sources for each and everything that is said when you yourself won’t do it. Sources are no more than a google search away.

And to those saying its such a problem here, it is not. Australia takes a minimal amount of refugees.

Source? Even though I know Australia ranks around 68th per capita but even that is skewed considering the top countries are Pakistan, Iran and Syria. We don’t have sprawling tent cities lived in by multiple generations of refugees. Not that you’re interested in those people, they didn’t pay and cheat their way across so screw them.

You want us up around the top 5 or 10? Where are you going to put these half a million to a million per five year average arrivals, considering that the infrastructure that we have in place is already overloaded? Where are you going to process these million plus refugees per year in a timely manner? How are you going to be sure that you’re not letting in those that have criminal convictions or tendencies would you take personal responsibility? What work are these million plus refugees going to be given? How are you going to avoid ethnic enclaves turning into slums? Are you going to force people to live in outback areas rather than cities close to their relatives? Where is the money going to come from to support all of this, what would you say to the homeless, disability carers, disability and old age pensioners and the multitude of other systems within Australia that are already crying out for money?

You look down your nose on the system by saying we don’t take enough but that’s as far as you go. Calling people out or insinuating as racists whilst sitting on your own hands is just intellectually lazy and stands to your character that when the questions are asked you’re no where to be found.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

kakosi said :

Why do people refer to refugees as “illegal” asylum seekers? How can being a refugee be illegal?

The vast majority of what you might term Illegal immigrants/residents get a visa to Australia, arrive by plane and never leave. Of course people don’t see them arriving and they don’t stand out, so they are invisible.

No western country wants to deal with the issue of continuing wars and conditions that make people flee for their lives. Easier to blame the refugees and score political points.

Because their god is Alan jones. Rather than learn the actual laws they just blindly parrot whatever he says.

And to those saying its such a problem here, it is not. Australia takes a minimal amount of refugees.

Its simple really and not hard to understand. They are not refugees far from it. They pass through a number of countries before attempting to get to Australia purely because they are country shoppers or illegal economic migrants. The countries borders must be brought back under control. We will then bring in genuine refugees and migrants of our own choosing.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:59 am 28 Jul 13

kakosi said :

Why do people refer to refugees as “illegal” asylum seekers? How can being a refugee be illegal?

The vast majority of what you might term Illegal immigrants/residents get a visa to Australia, arrive by plane and never leave. Of course people don’t see them arriving and they don’t stand out, so they are invisible.

No western country wants to deal with the issue of continuing wars and conditions that make people flee for their lives. Easier to blame the refugees and score political points.

Because their god is Alan jones. Rather than learn the actual laws they just blindly parrot whatever he says.

And to those saying its such a problem here, it is not. Australia takes a minimal amount of refugees.

Why do people refer to refugees as “illegal” asylum seekers? How can being a refugee be illegal?

The vast majority of what you might term Illegal immigrants/residents get a visa to Australia, arrive by plane and never leave. Of course people don’t see them arriving and they don’t stand out, so they are invisible.

No western country wants to deal with the issue of continuing wars and conditions that make people flee for their lives. Easier to blame the refugees and score political points.

wildturkeycanoe6:08 pm 27 Jul 13

bundah said :

This is such a contentious issue and one can only surmise that never shall the twain meet.

Most would be aware that many atrocities have been committed under the banner of religion and in defence of one’s land.The problem is that many fear the worst with the influx and rise in the number of fundamentalists in recent times across the globe and understandably don’t wan’t an identical scenario in this country.

Those who consider that it’s a non-event are clearly repulsed by the inference and feel the need to resort to personal abuse when responding.This merely reflects that they are unable to control their emotions and feel the need to expose their ugly side in response to what they consider is bigotry.

I do not envy those whose responsibility it is to humanely address the border protection issues for they are obviously complex and difficult. While the most recent approach is to get tough it will invariably leave many of the genuine refugees in despair and the problem unresolved.

I’m with you on how difficult this issue is. However, if it is such an issue for us, what is it like for other countries in the world? Why is Australia under so much pressure from these boat people? Is it SO much easier to get here, or SO much better once status has been attained of citizenship?
How do other countries in the world tackle the problem, or do they have to at all? Try getting into America for instance, just look at their border protection policies. Mexicans constantly try to cross but they don’t tolerate it, just send ’em back. Why is this any different? We are just another western democracy, like the US, or England, or any other UN partner yet we face this complex issue.
Border protection should be just that, stopping anyone getting in who hasn’t got the right paperwork. If they are genuinely in fear for their lives, they can put up with whatever [humanitarian] conditions we give them, but they don’t have the right to ask for any more than the basics.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:40 pm 27 Jul 13

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

Sources?

You are bone lazy. You know how to use a library don’t you or even the Google thingy if you are too lazy to go to one?
I think you believe the meaning of your favourite response “sources?” is “ignorance is bliss”.
Anyhow, as far as the IRA’s involvement in Australia is concerned you will find on Wikipedia the following; “The IRA also sent members on arms importation, logistical support and intelligence operations at different times to continental Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, the Middle East and Latin America. On at least one occasion IRA members travelled to Colombia to work with the militias of cocaine dealers and the Marxist revolutionary group FARC.[76]”
The IRA also murdered two Australian tourists in Holland.
If you are not aware of the other events I alluded to then you are in denial, don’t read papers or watch/listen to TV/radio or you live on another planet. Probably all of these. In any event, I am not going to waste my time getting you links to check.
Incidentally, in support of my agreement with the OP (only atheists should be allowed into Australia) I should also mention that peace loving Buddhists in Myanmar/Burma are ethnically cleansing the Muslim minorities there.

Yup, just as I thought, you do t actually have any sources, do you dungfungus? All you seem to do is talk uneducated, ignorant, bigoted lies.

This is such a contentious issue and one can only surmise that never shall the twain meet.

Most would be aware that many atrocities have been committed under the banner of religion and in defence of one’s land.The problem is that many fear the worst with the influx and rise in the number of fundamentalists in recent times across the globe and understandably don’t wan’t an identical scenario in this country.

Those who consider that it’s a non-event are clearly repulsed by the inference and feel the need to resort to personal abuse when responding.This merely reflects that they are unable to control their emotions and feel the need to expose their ugly side in response to what they consider is bigotry.

I do not envy those whose responsibility it is to humanely address the border protection issues for they are obviously complex and difficult. While the most recent approach is to get tough it will invariably leave many of the genuine refugees in despair and the problem unresolved.

Deckard said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

Just calling you out on your colossal generalisations again. Seriously, you do some research about the everyday muslim living in Jakarta. They’re not waging war against you. They’re more worried about working to live and feed their families like you and me. What about those muslim businessmen doing lots of work with Australian businesses. The secular Indonesian military that has christians and muslims working together. Oh my god, how do they do it without killing each other??

Yes, there are some extremists who are the lowest of the low, but do you base all christians on some of the nutjob christian movements in the US?

Last time I comment here because there’s no point telling you. You only listen to anything that suits your bigoted uneducated point of view. You’ll just come back with another generalisation against an entire country based on the actions of a group of 20 or so people.

As for the original topic, yes the picture would be blurred for 2 reasons. It might harm the persons family back in Iran if the person is identified, and also because it could be used by that person as part of their protection application – ‘well that photo’s out now so there’s no way I can go back home’.

Just because my opinions don’t gell with yours, you have no right to call me “uneducated”. Tell me about why your “educated” opinion is superior to mine?
BTW, I agree with your explanation why the picture was blurred.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

Sources?

You are bone lazy. You know how to use a library don’t you or even the Google thingy if you are too lazy to go to one?
I think you believe the meaning of your favourite response “sources?” is “ignorance is bliss”.
Anyhow, as far as the IRA’s involvement in Australia is concerned you will find on Wikipedia the following; “The IRA also sent members on arms importation, logistical support and intelligence operations at different times to continental Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, the Middle East and Latin America. On at least one occasion IRA members travelled to Colombia to work with the militias of cocaine dealers and the Marxist revolutionary group FARC.[76]”
The IRA also murdered two Australian tourists in Holland.
If you are not aware of the other events I alluded to then you are in denial, don’t read papers or watch/listen to TV/radio or you live on another planet. Probably all of these. In any event, I am not going to waste my time getting you links to check.
Incidentally, in support of my agreement with the OP (only atheists should be allowed into Australia) I should also mention that peace loving Buddhists in Myanmar/Burma are ethnically cleansing the Muslim minorities there.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:35 am 27 Jul 13

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

Sources?

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

Just calling you out on your colossal generalisations again. Seriously, you do some research about the everyday muslim living in Jakarta. They’re not waging war against you. They’re more worried about working to live and feed their families like you and me. What about those muslim businessmen doing lots of work with Australian businesses. The secular Indonesian military that has christians and muslims working together. Oh my god, how do they do it without killing each other??

Yes, there are some extremists who are the lowest of the low, but do you base all christians on some of the nutjob christian movements in the US?

Last time I comment here because there’s no point telling you. You only listen to anything that suits your bigoted uneducated point of view. You’ll just come back with another generalisation against an entire country based on the actions of a group of 20 or so people.

As for the original topic, yes the picture would be blurred for 2 reasons. It might harm the persons family back in Iran if the person is identified, and also because it could be used by that person as part of their protection application – ‘well that photo’s out now so there’s no way I can go back home’.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow! I missed a lot while I was off the net.
Deep reading here but a big issue with racism, not only against foreigners but also our local folk.
All I can say is, if I had to leave home right now with my family and flee some regime for fear of being slaughtered, I don’t think I’d have a “bat’s chance in hell” of putting my house on the market, selling my car, possessions and getting plane tickets to a foreign country. Then, even if I did, I don’t know what I’d have left to sell, to go that last few hundred kilometers in a leaky boat piloted by unscrupulous people, under the radar to seek paradise.
If I’d made it by plane to the stop-over country, why would I waste all those tens-of-thousands of dollars, especially when in that country those tens-of-thousands can help your family survive like kings?
Is it because Australia gives you pretty much everything for free, without you having to lift a finger? [Kochie reckons it’s about 89% of the dole “once your in”]
Perhaps the lure of a “free” life, is just too strong for some, or perhaps a ticket for the morally deprived to take advantage of our generosity.
If our own citizens on welfare had access to the net, I wonder what they’d think about our new arrivals. Has anyone done a survey to see what they think of the people who are taking away from their “entitlements”? Obviously, if there was less spent on refugees, there’d be more for the rest of us.
I believe in the philosophy of “cleaning up your own backyard first” before you throw any more on the pile. If anybody disagrees with this, feel free to leave Australia and reside in one of the countries from where these people have come, or drop everything they own and give it up to some of those who freeze in the cold of our winter’s city streets.
If you try to get here illegally from Iraq or the United States, doesn’t make a difference.Once you have left the oppression, what does another 6 or 12 months living in paid accommodation with free meals compare with the alternative? Yet, they still complain.

Kochie? Who is he? I am assuming he is one of the Alan Jones type commentators but I don’t really care. He appears to have obtained his 89% figure from this site. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees
What he didn’t add was that the states and territories are funded back door by the feds to supplement
refugees’ income through “community assistance programmes”.
Meals on wheels however has to survive on voluntary labour.

IrishPete said :

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

You make a good point. In Syria and Egypt, Islamists are killing each other daily, also in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. There is evidence that Islamists involved in crime gangs in our larger cities are doing their best to create “nasty situations” here.
Indonesian Muslims are still focused on killing off the remaining Christians in that country but when that is finished they will probably start wars between themselves. Then there are the African nations that are turning back the clock hundreds of years by embracing fundamentalist Islam which includes burning Christians alive in churches.
So much for “the religion of peace”.
Yes, the followers of this “faith” are the ideal people to grant asylum to, just like the ones that behead people on the streets of London in broad daylight.
With respect to your obvious Irish connections, it wasn’t that long ago that Potestants and Catholics (Christians) were killing each other in Ireland and there are signs of it flaring up again. Indeed, many IRA extremists moved to Australia and set up armed resistance cells here to raise money for the cause back home, “maintain the rage” and seize any opportunity to assasinate members of the Royal Family who might be visiting the antipodes.
Having said all that, I believe Christian values must be adhered to in Australia and any distinctive doctrines that threaten to dilute that standard should be resisted.

wildturkeycanoe10:53 pm 26 Jul 13

Wow! I missed a lot while I was off the net.
Deep reading here but a big issue with racism, not only against foreigners but also our local folk.
All I can say is, if I had to leave home right now with my family and flee some regime for fear of being slaughtered, I don’t think I’d have a “bat’s chance in hell” of putting my house on the market, selling my car, possessions and getting plane tickets to a foreign country. Then, even if I did, I don’t know what I’d have left to sell, to go that last few hundred kilometers in a leaky boat piloted by unscrupulous people, under the radar to seek paradise.
If I’d made it by plane to the stop-over country, why would I waste all those tens-of-thousands of dollars, especially when in that country those tens-of-thousands can help your family survive like kings?
Is it because Australia gives you pretty much everything for free, without you having to lift a finger? [Kochie reckons it’s about 89% of the dole “once your in”]
Perhaps the lure of a “free” life, is just too strong for some, or perhaps a ticket for the morally deprived to take advantage of our generosity.
If our own citizens on welfare had access to the net, I wonder what they’d think about our new arrivals. Has anyone done a survey to see what they think of the people who are taking away from their “entitlements”? Obviously, if there was less spent on refugees, there’d be more for the rest of us.
I believe in the philosophy of “cleaning up your own backyard first” before you throw any more on the pile. If anybody disagrees with this, feel free to leave Australia and reside in one of the countries from where these people have come, or drop everything they own and give it up to some of those who freeze in the cold of our winter’s city streets.
If you try to get here illegally from Iraq or the United States, doesn’t make a difference.Once you have left the oppression, what does another 6 or 12 months living in paid accommodation with free meals compare with the alternative? Yet, they still complain.

harvyk1 said :

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

I vote for letting in atheists only, we are very low maintenance.

No agnostics – they should just make up their minds.

IP

DrKoresh said :

dungfungus said :

harvyk1 said :

Whilst this is totally going OT.

Australia is a secular country, this means we are not governed by the principals of any one religion. Plus whilst our constitution does not give us as many rights as we think (eg technically we have no right to free speech) freedom of religion is a right enshrined in that document.

As such, if Muslims did want to build a Mosque on every corner, they would be entitled to do so under our constitution and apart from putting in objections based on building codes, there is nothing the average Aussie could legally do.

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

Islam is not secular so Muslims are not receptive to that tenet. If they are indeed fleeing a “nasty situation” then they should resettle in another less nasty caliphate rather then try and set one up in Australia. Why do they insist on coming to a predominantly Christian country?

We’re not predominantly Christian, most people I know don’t even believe in a God, even the ones who consider themselves Christians. To say that we’re predominantly Christian is disingenuous when only 60-odd % of people call themselves Christian, especially when you consider the number of people who are Christian in name only, and don’t believe most of its basic tenets.

Well, I’ll explain it to you another way (at the risk of Jim Jones and his peers of abuse descending on me). According to Islam, if you are a non-believer you are an infidel and that means you are for the high jump. You may say I am an Islamophobe but when they say they they are going to eliminate all non-Muslims then if you laugh and stick your head in the sand you deserve to get your lot.

Here is a less conspiracy-laden take on whether the lead photo is “genuine” or not:

The woman in the photo is a refugee, fleeing political or religious persecution. If she has family “back home” (which is not home anymore, otherwise she wouldn’t be fleeting persecution, but that’s an aside) there is a high probability that they, too, would be persecuted if the persecutors knew she was alive. If you disappear and are presumed dead, there’s no reason to hold your friends and relatives hostage to secure your return, after all.

So you as the sensible agent processing photos for release in the Department of Immigration blur out the identifying features (rings, fingers, face, neck, etc) while still allowing the photo to convey the emotion of the scene.

The only question in my mind is whether this woman is distressed because she won’t be resettled in Australia, or because she’s just witnessed thirty friends drown.

Either way, coming to Australia by sea on an overcrowded fishing boat from Indonesia is foolish in the extreme.

dungfungus said :

harvyk1 said :

Islam is not secular so Muslims are not receptive to that tenet. If they are indeed fleeing a “nasty situation” then they should resettle in another less nasty caliphate rather then try and set one up in Australia. Why do they insist on coming to a predominantly Christian country?

Jeez the world must be so simple for you when you typecast a religion of billions of people into one simple bucket.

Why are they coming to a ‘christian’ country? Maybe it’s because they’re secular and like to live in a place where people are free to believe what ever they like.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:20 pm 26 Jul 13

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Madam Cholet said :

Scrolling through a few stories today on SMH online, I started to read the latest article on the PNG solution about how the asylum seekers are not deterred – because they will not go back to their own country for love nor money. On reading down, I saw a picture that took my breath away – a policeman cradling a small exhausted child, probably the same age as my own child or thereabouts, who had been in the water for god knows how long after the most recent tragedy.

It grates enormously on me as an Australian citizen, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, that we are obviously fed stories which suit the political parties. As the first response says on this thread, I am not a bleeding heart leftie, probably far from it, but having compassion does not signify weakness.

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Scarce resources? Effing lol. Turn off Alan jones. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. And what’s wrong with mosques?

I have said before several times that I do not listen to Alan Jones and I have no idea what you are referring to. Obviously, you listen to him regularly so please inform me what he he talks about.
Australia in one of the richest countries in the world? On what authority do you say that? We have huge sovereign and personal debt and a tiny manufacturing sector unable to generate the income to pay off our debt when our mining sector is displaced by other countries.
Mosques are fine in Muslim countries but totally out of place in a predominantly Christian country like Australia. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I guess not or you would notice the absence of churches. Have you ever heard the not so dulcet tones of the adhan amplified over the Tannoy in the early hours of the morning? No.
You may not like my opinions but at least I am informed.

Actually, dungfungus, you are one of the most ill informed posters on here. You do nothing but spout ignorant rubbish and parrot Alan jones. Unless you are going to start posting facts, not story takes, please be quiet.

dungfungus said :

harvyk1 said :

Whilst this is totally going OT.

Australia is a secular country, this means we are not governed by the principals of any one religion. Plus whilst our constitution does not give us as many rights as we think (eg technically we have no right to free speech) freedom of religion is a right enshrined in that document.

As such, if Muslims did want to build a Mosque on every corner, they would be entitled to do so under our constitution and apart from putting in objections based on building codes, there is nothing the average Aussie could legally do.

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

Islam is not secular so Muslims are not receptive to that tenet. If they are indeed fleeing a “nasty situation” then they should resettle in another less nasty caliphate rather then try and set one up in Australia. Why do they insist on coming to a predominantly Christian country?

We’re not predominantly Christian, most people I know don’t even believe in a God, even the ones who consider themselves Christians. To say that we’re predominantly Christian is disingenuous when only 60-odd % of people call themselves Christian, especially when you consider the number of people who are Christian in name only, and don’t believe most of its basic tenets.

harvyk1 said :

dungfungus said :

..SNIP…

Mosques are fine in Muslim countries but totally out of place in a predominantly Christian country like Australia. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I guess not or you would notice the absence of churches. Have you ever heard the not so dulcet tones of the adhan amplified over the Tannoy in the early hours of the morning? No.
You may not like my opinions but at least I am informed.

Whilst this is totally going OT.

Australia is a secular country, this means we are not governed by the principals of any one religion. Plus whilst our constitution does not give us as many rights as we think (eg technically we have no right to free speech) freedom of religion is a right enshrined in that document.

As such, if Muslims did want to build a Mosque on every corner, they would be entitled to do so under our constitution and apart from putting in objections based on building codes, there is nothing the average Aussie could legally do.

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

Islam is not secular so Muslims are not receptive to that tenet. If they are indeed fleeing a “nasty situation” then they should resettle in another less nasty caliphate rather then try and set one up in Australia. Why do they insist on coming to a predominantly Christian country?

dungfungus said :

..SNIP…

Mosques are fine in Muslim countries but totally out of place in a predominantly Christian country like Australia. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I guess not or you would notice the absence of churches. Have you ever heard the not so dulcet tones of the adhan amplified over the Tannoy in the early hours of the morning? No.
You may not like my opinions but at least I am informed.

Whilst this is totally going OT.

Australia is a secular country, this means we are not governed by the principals of any one religion. Plus whilst our constitution does not give us as many rights as we think (eg technically we have no right to free speech) freedom of religion is a right enshrined in that document.

As such, if Muslims did want to build a Mosque on every corner, they would be entitled to do so under our constitution and apart from putting in objections based on building codes, there is nothing the average Aussie could legally do.

Since this article has gone from “ye gods people on boats” to “Muslims are under the beds” could someone again please remind me why the religion of a person who is fleeing some type of nasty situation actually plays any part in if we should grant them asylum or not?

dungfungus said :

Stevian said :

dungfungus said :

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner..

And why does that worry you so much? I see Churches all over the place, that doesn’t bother me. And before you say it please offer a credible source when you claim all Muslims are terrorists, because we know that’s rubbish

Where did I say “all Muslims are terrorists”?

The implication was there. What is it you have against Mosques? Is it just some weird architecture fetish you have?

Diggety said :

Slightly off topic – I think a marriage of Rudd’s and Abbott’s policies on boat people may be a jolly good idea.

what, an army camp in png?

do please explain…

Stevian said :

dungfungus said :

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner..

And why does that worry you so much? I see Churches all over the place, that doesn’t bother me. And before you say it please offer a credible source when you claim all Muslims are terrorists, because we know that’s rubbish

Where did I say “all Muslims are terrorists”?

Moogey217 said :

My mother has worked for many years for large charities in the West of Sydney and is extremely upset at the program resources being diverted from really important programs (particularly housing and transition & emergency accommodation) to asylum seekers. I very much believe that we have a responsibility to help people less fortunate than us but when important resources required for those less fortunate in our communities starts to be diverted then in my opinion the balance is wrong.

A homeless man died in Sydney last week trying to escape the cold because there was no available emergency accommodation, pensioners have been told by the NSW Government that if their houses have been “under utilised” then they will be charged additional weekly rent for every empty room they have – whilst that sounds like a sensible plan most of the people this will affect are elderly widows who have lived in those houses for 50+ years and raised their families there…I understand we are signatories to the UN Convention but surely our own needy should get as much, if not more, funding, resources, housing etc as the asylum seekers?

It’s awful that we have to choose between funding already struggling services for our own homeless and aiding refugees in getting set-up here. Especially since we could easily make up the difference by cutting a little bit into the defence budget.

Looks like we’re gonna have to get rid of the second verse of the national anthem.

Dilandach said :

watto23 said :

The whole asylum seeker issue has been blown well out of proportion to the actual problem for political gain and neither Labor or coalition are innocent here.

I’m really disgusted by the attitudes of Australians regarding this issue. The only policy i think is of value is the temporary protection visa or similar. Let them come and life in the community, or evening the detention centres with the ability to come and go until they find somewhere to live. If they are not genuine then kick them out. Spend the money on getting the people smugglers.

How are you differentiating the genuine refugees from the non geniune and then sorting the genuine refugees who have a penchant for violence, sexual assault or drug related issues from the ones who really do just want a safe life?

Despite the consensus of a naive few, yes, there are some detainees that are violently harming others which including rape. Those same people would be among the group that you’d green light straight into the community whilst being checked over.

Why should any detainee who resorts to violence, standing over other detainees to force them into acts of self harm or sexually assaults other people be let out into the wider community?

Just because they claim refugee status does not mean that every single one of them are. Claiming refugee status does not mean that all their past sins are forgiven and they’re pure as the driven snow. You simply don’t know who you are letting into the wider community, you simply can’t know.

You are right you don’t know who you are letting into the community, but we are also punishing people because 1 in 100 or a 1000 might be bad cookie. The whole idea that someone is less likely to come to Australia if the detention centre isn’t in Australia though is ridiculous these people are desperate and depending on the situation in the country they are coming from, whether they’ll attempt to come here or somewhere else.
There are plenty of compassionate ideas floating around the community that get glanced over, because politically it would be suicide right now. How about using detention centres as a place to live and allow some freedom to leave the detantion centre. like a trip to a supermarket to buy food for themselves and the ability to lead some kind of life. Even a curfew on the detention centre, back before say 6pm would at least allow people to lead a life while being assessed.

I’m definately not saying lets have a free for all, but I think many Australians also would like a better way of doing things. There was a story that a child died on the boat that sunk the other day, as a mans wife and child were trying to join him in Australia and coming through the legal way was proving to be difficult after 4 years of trying. So they jumped on a boat. Pretty certain that death was the Australian governments fault.

My mother has worked for many years for large charities in the West of Sydney and is extremely upset at the program resources being diverted from really important programs (particularly housing and transition & emergency accommodation) to asylum seekers. I very much believe that we have a responsibility to help people less fortunate than us but when important resources required for those less fortunate in our communities starts to be diverted then in my opinion the balance is wrong.

A homeless man died in Sydney last week trying to escape the cold because there was no available emergency accommodation, pensioners have been told by the NSW Government that if their houses have been “under utilised” then they will be charged additional weekly rent for every empty room they have – whilst that sounds like a sensible plan most of the people this will affect are elderly widows who have lived in those houses for 50+ years and raised their families there…I understand we are signatories to the UN Convention but surely our own needy should get as much, if not more, funding, resources, housing etc as the asylum seekers?

dungfungus said :

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner..

And why does that worry you so much? I see Churches all over the place, that doesn’t bother me. And before you say it please offer a credible source when you claim all Muslims are terrorists, because we know that’s rubbish

Grimm said :

[
So give me a real example that you have suffered discrimination as a gun owner which had you not been a gun owner you would not have faced?

Well, being constantly referred to as a bloodthirsty redneck, a “gun nut”, and defamed by every major media outlet at every opportunity, punished for and linked to driveby shootings done by criminals with illegally imported firearms, simply because I take part in a perfectly legal sport. There’s a start.

self.

So you experienced this personally? No. That’s not persecution that’s a persecution complex

Send em all to my house

Yup, picked it. Probably an ISSF pistol shooter with that “Screw the rest of you” attitude.

As for what I do for the lobby, I will wager the time and effort I put into making sure that ALL of us aren’t completely screwed over amounts to more in a week than the likes of you has ever done. Unless of course you can tell me which advisory boards you are on and which organisations you officially represent. Doubtful though. Hoping people like me will actually attempt to do something about the constant attacks on and descrimination against shooters is way easier than doing anything yourself.

DrKoresh said :

dungfungus said :

harvyk1 said :

dungfungus said :

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Technically an Indian could take my job without ever having to leave India, so I find that comment very irrelevant. Plus a higher population level equals more services which need to be done locally which equals more jobs and job creation, not less.

Considering that out of that 200,000 number (I’ll use your numbers for arguments sake) the majority of those people are either from New Zealand or England. Plus the large majority of illegal migrants to this country is British tourists overstaying their visa, and those guys easily overshadow the number of asylum seekers.

So what makes you think that a mosque will be on every corner? Just looking at wikipedia, it’s not until you get to country number 9, Malaysia that you start to see a large population from a majority Islamic country, and even then the numbers are absolutely overshadowed by the UK at 10 to 1 (ignoring all the other predominately Christian, Buddhist or Hindu countries). Canberra itself I believe has two mosques in the entire city. How many churches does it have? IMHO the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do.

As at 4.30pm on 16th July, 2013 there had been 218 boat arrivals carrying 15,182 “passengers”.
the break by country up is as follows:
Iranian

5054
Afghans

2083
Sri Lankans 1730
Stateless 1478
Pakistanis 1088
Vietnamese 759
Iraqis

672
Bangladeshis 461
Burmese 222
Sudanese 368
Somalis 219
Lebanese

1777
Others

871

Over the same period there have been 455 “removals” of which 381 were involuntary. Of the total number, 418 were Sri Lankans.

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

Grow up Dungfungus, your fear of Muslims is unwarranted and exceedingly unflattering.
And DUB, it’s somewhat baffling that you’d decide to speculate on my ethnic heritage in defence of your heinous intolerance, but I guess I didn’t expect much more from someone who was fathered by a dog and mothered by a monkey.

Well I find it extraordinary that anyone who was fathered by a dog and mothered by a monkey is able to read and write. I have a whole new respect for those animals for they’ve been belittled for far too long..

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Madam Cholet said :

Scrolling through a few stories today on SMH online, I started to read the latest article on the PNG solution about how the asylum seekers are not deterred – because they will not go back to their own country for love nor money. On reading down, I saw a picture that took my breath away – a policeman cradling a small exhausted child, probably the same age as my own child or thereabouts, who had been in the water for god knows how long after the most recent tragedy.

It grates enormously on me as an Australian citizen, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, that we are obviously fed stories which suit the political parties. As the first response says on this thread, I am not a bleeding heart leftie, probably far from it, but having compassion does not signify weakness.

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Scarce resources? Effing lol. Turn off Alan jones. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. And what’s wrong with mosques?

I have said before several times that I do not listen to Alan Jones and I have no idea what you are referring to. Obviously, you listen to him regularly so please inform me what he he talks about.
Australia in one of the richest countries in the world? On what authority do you say that? We have huge sovereign and personal debt and a tiny manufacturing sector unable to generate the income to pay off our debt when our mining sector is displaced by other countries.
Mosques are fine in Muslim countries but totally out of place in a predominantly Christian country like Australia. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I guess not or you would notice the absence of churches. Have you ever heard the not so dulcet tones of the adhan amplified over the Tannoy in the early hours of the morning? No.
You may not like my opinions but at least I am informed.

Dilandach said :

dungfungus said :

That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

I personally don’t subscribe to ‘green fear’. Despite the low brow comments and the very intellectually lazy arguments coming from some quarters, I disagree with racism. I’ve worked and lived with and been friends with quite a number of people of different races and religions as well as living in a couple of non-english speaking countries (and planning to go back to live there on a more permanent basis in a couple of years). Do I care what someone looks like or what deity they pray to? Nope, as long as you’re not messing my or someone else’s crap up, do what you want.

Why should I have to trot out the tired “some of my best friends are…” ? Why? Because of cheap lazy arguments from people that have no points to make other than to try and attack people personally whilst bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Alan Jones? John Laws? I don’t and have never listened to either of them or any other shock jock, I get my news primarily from SBS, ABC, Al Jazeera and a variety of other sources (Variety being a key word there.) I’ve never even thought about supporting One Nation or any offshoot. I’m not an Abbott supporter nor a coalition shill. I’m certainly not a union hack and don’t belong to one. I’m not a jobless uni student handing out socialist newspapers or someone that carries ‘ditch the witch’ placards or any other circlejerk that comes to mind.

b..b..but racist! I hear some stammer. Yeah, keep sticking to labelling people with no evidence or knowledge on their background. You just keep looking more and more foolish.

Thanks for your life story. Now get on a plane and go to Europe. Open your eyes, not your bowels.
Also, check the definition of racism.

Slightly off topic – I think a marriage of Rudd’s and Abbott’s policies on boat people may be a jolly good idea.

Grimm said :

Postalgeek said :

So you can’t easily procure a semi-auto and have to attend range several times a year if you don’t have access to a property. Boo-fking-hoo. Tell me all about the harrowing discrimination and persecution we endure daily because we voluntarily decide to own a restricted firearm.

Ah, so you are one of those people who sat around in ’96, and still sits around not giving a crap what happens with other people, as long as your particular discipline isn’t the one on the line at the time? Thankfully most of your kind are pretty quickly weeded out and marginalised for being self centred knobs.

Predictable, good to see.

You’re ranting about left wing hippies and next thing you’re blundering into Howard’s legislation from 96. Which target are you actually aiming for?

As for the rest of the dribble, ‘your kind’ is the reason why I don’t give a crap about ‘your kind’. And there you are wailing about people labelling you. And ‘weeding? WTF are you talking about? Shooters like you do untold damage to the lobby every time you open your mouths, and then you blame everyone else.

Oh dear, someone’s just called used the term ‘gun nut’ in the media. You better take it personally and go cry in the corner. We all know it’s insincere, but make it look good.

dungfungus said :

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

Research from your European right wing nationalist websites? Sure there might be a bit of unrest but I’d say most of this comes from the neo-nazi movement.

Last census showed 2% of the Australian population were muslim. A bit of time to go before your takeover mate. 20 years ago you nationalists used to harp on about asian immigration, how they’d take over the country. Still waiting for that one aren’t we… Now you’re on to the ‘dangerous’ muslims. I suppose you have to have someone to hate.

I’m actually more scared of people like you than the honest hard working muslims I’ve met. They’re contributing more to this country than you ever will.

dungfungus said :

harvyk1 said :

dungfungus said :

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Technically an Indian could take my job without ever having to leave India, so I find that comment very irrelevant. Plus a higher population level equals more services which need to be done locally which equals more jobs and job creation, not less.

Considering that out of that 200,000 number (I’ll use your numbers for arguments sake) the majority of those people are either from New Zealand or England. Plus the large majority of illegal migrants to this country is British tourists overstaying their visa, and those guys easily overshadow the number of asylum seekers.

So what makes you think that a mosque will be on every corner? Just looking at wikipedia, it’s not until you get to country number 9, Malaysia that you start to see a large population from a majority Islamic country, and even then the numbers are absolutely overshadowed by the UK at 10 to 1 (ignoring all the other predominately Christian, Buddhist or Hindu countries). Canberra itself I believe has two mosques in the entire city. How many churches does it have? IMHO the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do.

As at 4.30pm on 16th July, 2013 there had been 218 boat arrivals carrying 15,182 “passengers”.
the break by country up is as follows:
Iranian

5054
Afghans

2083
Sri Lankans 1730
Stateless 1478
Pakistanis 1088
Vietnamese 759
Iraqis

672
Bangladeshis 461
Burmese 222
Sudanese 368
Somalis 219
Lebanese

1777
Others

871

Over the same period there have been 455 “removals” of which 381 were involuntary. Of the total number, 418 were Sri Lankans.

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

Grow up Dungfungus, your fear of Muslims is unwarranted and exceedingly unflattering.
And DUB, it’s somewhat baffling that you’d decide to speculate on my ethnic heritage in defence of your heinous intolerance, but I guess I didn’t expect much more from someone who was fathered by a dog and mothered by a monkey.

dungfungus said :

That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

I personally don’t subscribe to ‘green fear’. Despite the low brow comments and the very intellectually lazy arguments coming from some quarters, I disagree with racism. I’ve worked and lived with and been friends with quite a number of people of different races and religions as well as living in a couple of non-english speaking countries (and planning to go back to live there on a more permanent basis in a couple of years). Do I care what someone looks like or what deity they pray to? Nope, as long as you’re not messing my or someone else’s crap up, do what you want.

Why should I have to trot out the tired “some of my best friends are…” ? Why? Because of cheap lazy arguments from people that have no points to make other than to try and attack people personally whilst bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Alan Jones? John Laws? I don’t and have never listened to either of them or any other shock jock, I get my news primarily from SBS, ABC, Al Jazeera and a variety of other sources (Variety being a key word there.) I’ve never even thought about supporting One Nation or any offshoot. I’m not an Abbott supporter nor a coalition shill. I’m certainly not a union hack and don’t belong to one. I’m not a jobless uni student handing out socialist newspapers or someone that carries ‘ditch the witch’ placards or any other circlejerk that comes to mind.

b..b..but racist! I hear some stammer. Yeah, keep sticking to labelling people with no evidence or knowledge on their background. You just keep looking more and more foolish.

watto23 said :

The whole asylum seeker issue has been blown well out of proportion to the actual problem for political gain and neither Labor or coalition are innocent here.

I’m really disgusted by the attitudes of Australians regarding this issue. The only policy i think is of value is the temporary protection visa or similar. Let them come and life in the community, or evening the detention centres with the ability to come and go until they find somewhere to live. If they are not genuine then kick them out. Spend the money on getting the people smugglers.

How are you differentiating the genuine refugees from the non geniune and then sorting the genuine refugees who have a penchant for violence, sexual assault or drug related issues from the ones who really do just want a safe life?

Despite the consensus of a naive few, yes, there are some detainees that are violently harming others which including rape. Those same people would be among the group that you’d green light straight into the community whilst being checked over.

Why should any detainee who resorts to violence, standing over other detainees to force them into acts of self harm or sexually assaults other people be let out into the wider community?

Just because they claim refugee status does not mean that every single one of them are. Claiming refugee status does not mean that all their past sins are forgiven and they’re pure as the driven snow. You simply don’t know who you are letting into the wider community, you simply can’t know.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:38 pm 25 Jul 13

dungfungus said :

Madam Cholet said :

Scrolling through a few stories today on SMH online, I started to read the latest article on the PNG solution about how the asylum seekers are not deterred – because they will not go back to their own country for love nor money. On reading down, I saw a picture that took my breath away – a policeman cradling a small exhausted child, probably the same age as my own child or thereabouts, who had been in the water for god knows how long after the most recent tragedy.

It grates enormously on me as an Australian citizen, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, that we are obviously fed stories which suit the political parties. As the first response says on this thread, I am not a bleeding heart leftie, probably far from it, but having compassion does not signify weakness.

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Scarce resources? Effing lol. Turn off Alan jones. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. And what’s wrong with mosques?

harvyk1 said :

dungfungus said :

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Technically an Indian could take my job without ever having to leave India, so I find that comment very irrelevant. Plus a higher population level equals more services which need to be done locally which equals more jobs and job creation, not less.

Considering that out of that 200,000 number (I’ll use your numbers for arguments sake) the majority of those people are either from New Zealand or England. Plus the large majority of illegal migrants to this country is British tourists overstaying their visa, and those guys easily overshadow the number of asylum seekers.

So what makes you think that a mosque will be on every corner? Just looking at wikipedia, it’s not until you get to country number 9, Malaysia that you start to see a large population from a majority Islamic country, and even then the numbers are absolutely overshadowed by the UK at 10 to 1 (ignoring all the other predominately Christian, Buddhist or Hindu countries). Canberra itself I believe has two mosques in the entire city. How many churches does it have? IMHO the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do.

As at 4.30pm on 16th July, 2013 there had been 218 boat arrivals carrying 15,182 “passengers”.
the break by country up is as follows:
Iranian 5054
Afghans 2083
Sri Lankans 1730
Stateless 1478
Pakistanis 1088
Vietnamese 759
Iraqis 672
Bangladeshis 461
Burmese 222
Sudanese 368
Somalis 219
Lebanese 1777
Others 871

Over the same period there have been 455 “removals” of which 381 were involuntary. Of the total number, 418 were Sri Lankans.

Bob Carr (Labor Senator) says the number of people arriving by boat could reach 50,000 pa. Factor in family reunion and high birth rates and we have something approaching a takeover. That is why there could be a mosque on every corner.
For your own sake, do some research about what is happening in Europe.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:33 pm 25 Jul 13

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You implied it was all of them, I’m quick to label you a xenophobe because of your obvious and irrational xenophobia. You can keep telling yourself that you’re not a racist dirtbag, but I think the only one you’d be fooling was yourself (and perhaps other racist dirtbags). Did I say anything about perfectly good reasons for violence? No, but hey, put words in my mouth in a futile attempt to justify your position as anything other than small-minded bigotry.

I never implied any such thing, wishful thinking on your part. Tsk Tsk More personal attacks, Just going to prove my point that you’d rather make ridiculous Ad-hominem attacks than looking at the subjects at hand.

Its a shame that you’d rather label people and abuse than take the time to even show even the smallest bit of disgust for those committing the deeds reported or even concern for those suffering the fate.

You try pull this crap every time. You make disgusting and outlandish claims and never ever post any sources or facts and when questioned or told off about it you start crapping on about how everyone else’s actual are facts become in valid because they call you out.

Postalgeek said :

So you can’t easily procure a semi-auto and have to attend range several times a year if you don’t have access to a property. Boo-fking-hoo. Tell me all about the harrowing discrimination and persecution we endure daily because we voluntarily decide to own a restricted firearm.

Ah, so you are one of those people who sat around in ’96, and still sits around not giving a crap what happens with other people, as long as your particular discipline isn’t the one on the line at the time? Thankfully most of your kind are pretty quickly weeded out and marginalised for being self centred knobs.

harvyk1 said :

Grimm said :

I can’t tell a person is an Afghan/Iraqi/place where war is current unless they tell me either.

Really?

Can you tell the difference between an Iraqi or afghan and somebody from Saudi Arabia, or any part of the middle east? Can you also tell which part of Africa somebody comes from by looking at them? I’d love to know how, without being told.

Postalgeek said :

Grimm said :

That, and at some point they chose to come here. Considering millions of others have chosen to stay, they do have a choice. The left are either for it or against it. Why is it ok to discriminate against me for the actions of a tiny, tiny minority and not do the same with other groups? Discrimination is discrimination. Pick a side.

Gee, their choice was stay in a country which meant persecution / death / both or escape to somewhere else. Hard choice that one…

So give me a real example that you have suffered discrimination as a gun owner which had you not been a gun owner you would not have faced?

Well, being constantly referred to as a bloodthirsty redneck, a “gun nut”, and defamed by every major media outlet at every opportunity, punished for and linked to driveby shootings done by criminals with illegally imported firearms, simply because I take part in a perfectly legal sport. There’s a start.

But hey, you keep trying to justify how discrimination is just fine in one case and not another. You may even convince yourself.

Grimm said :

I can’t tell a person is an Afghan/Iraqi/place where war is current unless they tell me either.

Really?

Grimm said :

That, and at some point they chose to come here. Considering millions of others have chosen to stay, they do have a choice. The left are either for it or against it. Why is it ok to discriminate against me for the actions of a tiny, tiny minority and not do the same with other groups? Discrimination is discrimination. Pick a side.

Gee, their choice was stay in a country which meant persecution / death / both or escape to somewhere else. Hard choice that one…

So give me a real example that you have suffered discrimination as a gun owner which had you not been a gun owner you would not have faced?

Grimm said :

Mate, I’m a gun owner, so I know exactly how it feels. But hey, hating us is politically correct, so that kind of discrimination is just fine. The left wing hippies won’t stand up for our rights at all, and in fact are the biggest perpetrators of said discrimination. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Seriously? Cry me a farkin river. I’m a gun owner too, and that is the biggest load of shite.

So you can’t easily procure a semi-auto and have to attend range several times a year if you don’t have access to a property. Boo-fking-hoo. Tell me all about the harrowing discrimination and persecution we endure daily because we voluntarily decide to own a restricted firearm.

harvyk1 said :

This is a slightly different thing. At one point in time you chose to go out and buy a gun and thus making yourself a gun owner, you very much so had the choice not to buy a gun and thus remain a “normal person”. A person does not chose to be born as an Afghan / Iraqi / place where war is current. I’ll acknowledge there is a periodic attack on your rights to own said guns, unless you identify yourself as a gun owner in your day to day dealings with people, no one would ever know and thus there is no actual discrimination taking place.

I can’t tell a person is an Afghan/Iraqi/place where war is current unless they tell me either. That, and at some point they chose to come here. Considering millions of others have chosen to stay, they do have a choice. The left are either for it or against it. Why is it ok to discriminate against me for the actions of a tiny, tiny minority and not do the same with other groups? Discrimination is discrimination. Pick a side.

Barcham said :

A quick warning.

A few people have crossed the line and just written straight abusive messages, with unnecessarily harsh language, personally attacking other posters.

These posts help nobody and achieve nothing, so I have shot those posts down before they’ve appeared here.

Some of you are flying awfully close to the sun, so just be mindful to keep your posts civil. If this discussion deteriorates completely into name calling I’ll shut it down.

Man when did I become the fun police?

Good work Barcho,i for one much prefer that rioters play the ball not the man however for some that’s just far too difficult for it requires thought 🙂

harvyk1 said :

So what makes you think that a mosque will be on every corner? .

Bigotry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/24/syria-refugee-crisis-world

and we get our knickers in a knot over a few thousand asylum seekers whio demonstrate the kind of gumption we might seek in a future citizen…

Grimm said :

Seriously? The same ones who demand that everybody respect their beliefs while shitting on everybody elses? The same ones that segregate themselves into communities of extremists and racists, dangerous for anybody but their own kind to enter?

Yeah, it’s not a problem at all.

I never said that all immigrants are angels, and there are certainly quite a few who I would personally love to see sent somewhere else. That said not all white aussies are angels either and there are a few I’d love to see sent somewhere else as well.

Grimm said :

Mate, I’m a gun owner, so I know exactly how it feels. But hey, hating us is politically correct, so that kind of discrimination is just fine. The left wing hippies won’t stand up for our rights at all, and in fact are the biggest perpetrators of said discrimination. Hypocrisy at its finest.

This is a slightly different thing. At one point in time you chose to go out and buy a gun and thus making yourself a gun owner, you very much so had the choice not to buy a gun and thus remain a “normal person”. A person does not chose to be born as an Afghan / Iraqi / place where war is current. I’ll acknowledge there is a periodic attack on your rights to own said guns, unless you identify yourself as a gun owner in your day to day dealings with people, no one would ever know and thus there is no actual discrimination taking place.

dungfungus said :

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Technically an Indian could take my job without ever having to leave India, so I find that comment very irrelevant. Plus a higher population level equals more services which need to be done locally which equals more jobs and job creation, not less.

Considering that out of that 200,000 number (I’ll use your numbers for arguments sake) the majority of those people are either from New Zealand or England. Plus the large majority of illegal migrants to this country is British tourists overstaying their visa, and those guys easily overshadow the number of asylum seekers.

So what makes you think that a mosque will be on every corner? Just looking at wikipedia, it’s not until you get to country number 9, Malaysia that you start to see a large population from a majority Islamic country, and even then the numbers are absolutely overshadowed by the UK at 10 to 1 (ignoring all the other predominately Christian, Buddhist or Hindu countries). Canberra itself I believe has two mosques in the entire city. How many churches does it have? IMHO the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do.

The whole asylum seeker issue has been blown well out of proportion to the actual problem for political gain and neither Labor or coalition are innocent here.

The Howard era policies didn’t work, it was coincidence more than policy. I’m interested to see how many asylum seekers actually choose PNG. If anyone chooses PNG then what does that say about their desperation to leave their country?

Also people seem to think that because they had enough money to pay ofr a boat, they can’t be real asylum seekers. You do realise they may have had a house and stable jobs for a while, before the persecution escalated and affected them. They may have used their entire life savings for the boat trip out of desperation. most people commenting on this issue have absolutely no idea at all and generally selfish and politically motivated.

I’m really disgusted by the attitudes of Australians regarding this issue. The only policy i think is of value is the temporary protection visa or similar. Let them come and life in the community, or evening the detention centres with the ability to come and go until they find somewhere to live. If they are not genuine then kick them out. Spend the money on getting the people smugglers.

Better yet if these people are willing to pay smugglers, why not let them pay the government, the money gets returned if they are genuine, used to pay for their return if they are not.

Use our police and defence forces with the collaboration of Indonesian forces to find the smugglers.

Problem is that won’t win an election.

I’m also speaking from someone who has been detained before. I was detained in China for the wrong visa. I can tell you being locked up with armed guards is not exactly fun. 1 day was enough for me, so i can only imagine what months is like.

Dilandach said :

Well I apologise that you misread and misunderstood what was written.

Isn’t it funny how *everyone* misread and misunderstood you?

harvyk1 said :

For those who think that Western Sydney is the perfect place to show how asylum seekers act once they arrive here I have some bad news for you.

1. The actual percentage of people in Western Sydney causing problems is in the low single digits. The vast majority of people who arrive there are interested in joining in and becoming part of our culture and lifestyle.

hahahahahahaha
Seriously? The same ones who demand that everybody respect their beliefs while shitting on everybody elses? The same ones that segregate themselves into communities of extremists and racists, dangerous for anybody but their own kind to enter?

Yeah, it’s not a problem at all.

harvyk1 said :

2. When there are those who have gone bad in Western Sydney it tends not to be the asylum seekers themselves but rather their children.

Children learn from their parents. Their attitude towards anybody not of their own kind is a learned behavior. It’s the fault of the community who harbours and encourages it.

harvyk1 said :

To all those who feel that asylum seekers do bad things and thus should all be sent home, how would you feel if you where tarnished as a bad person simply because some a***hole which you’d never even met or heard of did something bad, and you simply shared a physical attribute with that person?

Mate, I’m a gun owner, so I know exactly how it feels. But hey, hating us is politically correct, so that kind of discrimination is just fine. The left wing hippies won’t stand up for our rights at all, and in fact are the biggest perpetrators of said discrimination. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A quick warning.

A few people have crossed the line and just written straight abusive messages, with unnecessarily harsh language, personally attacking other posters.

These posts help nobody and achieve nothing, so I have shot those posts down before they’ve appeared here.

Some of you are flying awfully close to the sun, so just be mindful to keep your posts civil. If this discussion deteriorates completely into name calling I’ll shut it down.

Man when did I become the fun police?

DUB said :

Slightly off-topic.

I noticed (long time ago) that the vast majority of anti-Whites use “racist” and “nazi” tags, all of which are definitely Jewish anti-White memes. One such character who labels many Rioters as “racist” is none but Dr Koresh.
Sure, he could also be supremacist Chinese or Indian joker too. Haven’t ruled that out. However, my Jewdar is accurate to a few millimetres.

You’re all class.

dungfungus said :

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?

will he? or perhaps he’ll be contrubuting to the resources through his improvisation and creativity, enabled by his access to an education we in the enlightened west imagine should be enjoyed by everyone, to which he is unlikley to have access in our former protectorate…

Stevian said :

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You implied it was all of them, I’m quick to label you a xenophobe because of your obvious and irrational xenophobia. You can keep telling yourself that you’re not a racist dirtbag, but I think the only one you’d be fooling was yourself (and perhaps other racist dirtbags). Did I say anything about perfectly good reasons for violence? No, but hey, put words in my mouth in a futile attempt to justify your position as anything other than small-minded bigotry.

I never implied any such thing, .

No, you flat out stated it. Now you have to own it. That’s what grown ups do.

Well I apologise that you misread and misunderstood what was written.

Grown ups also don’t make excuses for sexual assault.

Dilandach said :

For those that whimper about the poor asylum seekers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to where they want and are supposedly are in despair over the recent activities reported from Manus Island. I ask you this:

Those same people that are doing the violent actions, burning down buildings, serious sexual assaults, intimidating others into performing acts of self harm and stock piling weapons with the intent to kill those who supervise them in the centers. Do you still think that placing those exact same people into the community would have been a good idea and do you still support placing those same people into the community?

well, confinement can add a deal of pressure to people already under great duress – i don’t necesarily imagine the perpetrators of these misdeeds would be expected to act similarly if given some human dignity. Or that you or I mightn’t act as they do in their situation. praise be to allah for that.

Madam Cholet said :

Scrolling through a few stories today on SMH online, I started to read the latest article on the PNG solution about how the asylum seekers are not deterred – because they will not go back to their own country for love nor money. On reading down, I saw a picture that took my breath away – a policeman cradling a small exhausted child, probably the same age as my own child or thereabouts, who had been in the water for god knows how long after the most recent tragedy.

It grates enormously on me as an Australian citizen, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, that we are obviously fed stories which suit the political parties. As the first response says on this thread, I am not a bleeding heart leftie, probably far from it, but having compassion does not signify weakness.

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

If that rescued child ends up in Australia he will eventually be competing with your own son for scarce resources. Are you going to be compassionate then?
Unless our borders are secured rapidly and our 200,000 plus pa immigration rate is reduced at least by a half, this country, with potentially a mosque on every corner, will no longer be the “envy” of others.
Toughen up for what’s ahead is my advice.

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You implied it was all of them, I’m quick to label you a xenophobe because of your obvious and irrational xenophobia. You can keep telling yourself that you’re not a racist dirtbag, but I think the only one you’d be fooling was yourself (and perhaps other racist dirtbags). Did I say anything about perfectly good reasons for violence? No, but hey, put words in my mouth in a futile attempt to justify your position as anything other than small-minded bigotry.

I never implied any such thing, .

No, you flat out stated it. Now you have to own it. That’s what grown ups do.

Dilandach said :

I never implied any such thing, wishful thinking on your part. Tsk Tsk More personal attacks, Just going to prove my point that you’d rather make ridiculous Ad-hominem attacks than looking at the subjects at hand.

Its a shame that you’d rather label people and abuse than take the time to even show even the smallest bit of disgust for those committing the deeds reported or even concern for those suffering the fate.

Did so. And the fact that several people have independently inferred that meaning from your posts, is strong evidence that you did imply it. If you now want to say that it was an unintentional implication, feel free.

IP

Madam Cholet said :

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

Please don’t lump the compassionate and sensible Greens policies in with the other parties – I think you mean “rhetoric coming from either of the major parties”.

IP

Slightly off-topic.

I noticed (long time ago) that the vast majority of anti-Whites use “racist” and “nazi” tags, all of which are definitely Jewish anti-White memes. One such character who labels many Rioters as “racist” is none but Dr Koresh.
Sure, he could also be supremacist Chinese or Indian joker too. Haven’t ruled that out. However, my Jewdar is accurate to a few millimetres.

Madam Cholet12:05 pm 25 Jul 13

Scrolling through a few stories today on SMH online, I started to read the latest article on the PNG solution about how the asylum seekers are not deterred – because they will not go back to their own country for love nor money. On reading down, I saw a picture that took my breath away – a policeman cradling a small exhausted child, probably the same age as my own child or thereabouts, who had been in the water for god knows how long after the most recent tragedy.

It grates enormously on me as an Australian citizen, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, that we are obviously fed stories which suit the political parties. As the first response says on this thread, I am not a bleeding heart leftie, probably far from it, but having compassion does not signify weakness.

I don’t know what the solution is, but this one does not sit well with me, and neither does any of the rhetoric coming from any of the parties.

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You implied it was all of them, I’m quick to label you a xenophobe because of your obvious and irrational xenophobia. You can keep telling yourself that you’re not a racist dirtbag, but I think the only one you’d be fooling was yourself (and perhaps other racist dirtbags). Did I say anything about perfectly good reasons for violence? No, but hey, put words in my mouth in a futile attempt to justify your position as anything other than small-minded bigotry.

I never implied any such thing, wishful thinking on your part. Tsk Tsk More personal attacks, Just going to prove my point that you’d rather make ridiculous Ad-hominem attacks than looking at the subjects at hand.

Its a shame that you’d rather label people and abuse than take the time to even show even the smallest bit of disgust for those committing the deeds reported or even concern for those suffering the fate.

Dilandach said :

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You can blame your own sloppy choice of words and your generalisations, referring to “the poor asylum seekers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to where they want and are supposedly are in despair over the recent activities reported from Manus Island” who are the “…same people that are doing the violent actions…”. so make the appropriate distinctions between violent perpetrators and the rest of the asylum seekers if you don’t want to be misconstrued.

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You implied it was all of them, I’m quick to label you a xenophobe because of your obvious and irrational xenophobia. You can keep telling yourself that you’re not a racist dirtbag, but I think the only one you’d be fooling was yourself (and perhaps other racist dirtbags). Did I say anything about perfectly good reasons for violence? No, but hey, put words in my mouth in a futile attempt to justify your position as anything other than small-minded bigotry.

All talk, no action.

Boats keep coming, people keep drowning.

Dilandach said :

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You didn’t say “all” but your comments strongly imply that you meant all or the majority.

If you would like to rephrase your comments as “a small minority are doing this/that” then that will make your position clearer. And we can then start comparing those percentages with the percentage of people living in Australia who behave like that.

As others have implied, official crime statistics suggest that immigrants have lower rates of offending than people born here, and when there are problems of ethnicity and crime they are among their children (which then has to make you ask, did their immigrant parents bring them up badly or did Australian society make them different from their parents?).

One exception from memory is immigrants from New Zealand who either have similar or higher levels of criminality than Australian-born people.

That’s what the stats show, and I have issues with the accuracy of the stats, but I’ll leave that debate for another time/place.

IP

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

You’re a truly nasty piece of work you are.

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Did I say it was all? Quite quick to resort to labels and personal attacks aren’t you? Don’t like where what is happening? But hey, brush it all away and keep insisting the ones doing this have perfectly good reasons to sexually assault and violently intimidate other vulnerable detainees.

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

So it’s reasonable to assume everyone in detention is a rapist and a vandal? The extent of your racism would be comical if it weren’t so freaking depressing.

Dilandach said :

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

I also watched the report on Dateline SBS and was disgusted with the alleged behaviour of some detainees.Just as disgusting was that those responsible for the welfare of the detainees were apparently oblivious to the claims.The Immigration Department also said it was unaware of the claims in the SBS report of unreported acts of self-harm, suicide attempts or incidents of rape at the centre.

So it seems that they were all MIA!

For those who think that Western Sydney is the perfect place to show how asylum seekers act once they arrive here I have some bad news for you.

1. The actual percentage of people in Western Sydney causing problems is in the low single digits. The vast majority of people who arrive there are interested in joining in and becoming part of our culture and lifestyle.

2. When there are those who have gone bad in Western Sydney it tends not to be the asylum seekers themselves but rather their children.

To all those who feel that asylum seekers do bad things and thus should all be sent home, how would you feel if you where tarnished as a bad person simply because some a***hole which you’d never even met or heard of did something bad, and you simply shared a physical attribute with that person?

Source? Sure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1791996/Rape-and-torture-on-Manus-Island-detention-centre

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

But can they be trusted? I mean how ‘right wing’ those two are…

You’ll always have people excusing their behaviour and rationalising why they are sexually assaulting others who are deemed more vulnerable. Again, they are the very same people you so desperately want to get into the community. Let the excuses for their behaviour roll on I guess.

astrojax said :

sorry, evidence please? what a bollocks load… and they don’t get citizenship until they fulfil all relevant obligations – including period of residency. So, a minority of those who acquire citizenship later return to the country of their birth. what of all those refugees like les murray and co who fled persecution in european countries now denizens of democracy – time can wrought change, you know.

I should have made myself clear. Yes, if the regime changes, then they can keep their citizenship.
Plenty of examples- Western Sydney is one example.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:46 pm 24 Jul 13

Dilandach said :

For those that whimper about the poor asylum seekers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to where they want and are supposedly are in despair over the recent activities reported from Manus Island. I ask you this:

Those same people that are doing the violent actions, burning down buildings, serious sexual assaults, intimidating others into performing acts of self harm and stock piling weapons with the intent to kill those who supervise them in the centers. Do you still think that placing those exact same people into the community would have been a good idea and do you still support placing those same people into the community?

Source?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:44 pm 24 Jul 13

DUB said :

Majority of asylum seekers claim that if they are returned to their country of origin they will face death.
Yet, as soon as they get Aussie Citizenship granted, they effing go off to their country for a holiday every year. What happened to ” I will be killed if I return”?

It should be compulsory to strip them off the Australian citizenship if they are found to be doing just that.Only the real refugees shall be allowed. That means we’ll probably have only couple of hundred genuine refugees every year at the most.

Source?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:43 pm 24 Jul 13

Roundhead89 said :

Don’t be fooled by this, it isn’t an attempt to crack down on illegal asylum seekers it is purely a short-term political fix to neutralise the illegal boat people issue in the western suburbs where the illegal aliens are dumped and causing huge social problems.

Graham Richardson said on Sky News that this “PNG Solution” is only intended to run in the leadup to the election to wedge Tony Abbott. Labor has to constantly appease the Left and their fellow travellers in the refugee/human rights lobby.

The only solution to the illegal asylum seeker issue is the reintroduction of the Howard policies including Temporary Protection Visas and towing back the boats by the Special Forces. Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

Hey Einstein, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. Stop listening to Alan jones.

devils_advocate said :

Roundhead89 said :

Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

Could you please elaborate on the numbers that constitute a ‘swarm’ and also the damage that is being done by said swarm.

There’s a reason western sydney gets so antsy about the boats as many of the occupants of the boats end up in western sydney which is already overcrowded.

Dilandach said :

For those that whimper about the poor asylum seekers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to where they want and are supposedly are in despair over the recent activities reported from Manus Island. I ask you this:

Those same people that are doing the violent actions, burning down buildings, serious sexual assaults, intimidating others into performing acts of self harm and stock piling weapons with the intent to kill those who supervise them in the centers. Do you still think that placing those exact same people into the community would have been a good idea and do you still support placing those same people into the community?

Presumably you haven’t witnessed these things for yourself, and you have only read about it in the right-wing media or heard it from the government.

I bet if I took you and locked you up in a detention centre on a remote Pacific island indefinitely (that means potentially forever), you’d start misbehaving eventually.

IP

harvyk1 said :

But are they really the exact same people or do they simply share an unfortunate likeness? Personally Ima going to guess that the people you speak of are not the same people trying to escape.

Oh it just must be a bunch of actors who dress up as typical refugees, get themselves transferred from christmas island to manus island and want to stay there. Couldn’t be actual refugees, I mean there’s no preference for that type of behaviour is there?… oh wait.

Perhaps sexual assaulting people is a cunning plan to get settled in Australia, better get those guys over here quick smart. I’m sure they’ll turn into fine upstanding citizens in no time.

Rudd and Labour are full of s***. All they to do is turn around a few boats and they will stop coming.It will cost us SFA. It’s bull**** that the Navy can’t tow or escort boats from our seas safely.

I don’t want boaties cue jumping and sponging of our system but I think it’s poor form for an Australian Government to keep the honey on the table and keep attracting boaties and then palm the people off to a third world country and let them deal with the problem.

Now Bob Car is in the Solomon Islands trying to palm people off to them. A country that is according to the Governments own climate guru, supposedly sinking under rising sea levels.

You are a gutless show pony Kevin Rudd and full verbal diarrhea.

Dilandach said :

Those same people that are doing the violent actions, burning down buildings, serious sexual assaults, intimidating others into performing acts of self harm and stock piling weapons with the intent to kill those who supervise them in the centers. Do you still think that placing those exact same people into the community would have been a good idea and do you still support placing those same people into the community?

But are they really the exact same people or do they simply share an unfortunate likeness? Personally Ima going to guess that the people you speak of are not the same people trying to escape.

For those that whimper about the poor asylum seekers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to where they want and are supposedly are in despair over the recent activities reported from Manus Island. I ask you this:

Those same people that are doing the violent actions, burning down buildings, serious sexual assaults, intimidating others into performing acts of self harm and stock piling weapons with the intent to kill those who supervise them in the centers. Do you still think that placing those exact same people into the community would have been a good idea and do you still support placing those same people into the community?

Why can’t we just let them all in the poor souls

neanderthalsis3:38 pm 24 Jul 13

astrojax said :

DUB said :

Majority of asylum seekers claim that if they are returned to their country of origin they will face death.
Yet, as soon as they get Aussie Citizenship granted, they effing go off to their country for a holiday every year. What happened to ” I will be killed if I return”?

It should be compulsory to strip them off the Australian citizenship if they are found to be doing just that.Only the real refugees shall be allowed. That means we’ll probably have only couple of hundred genuine refugees every year at the most.

sorry, evidence please? what a bollocks load… and they don’t get citizenship until they fulfil all relevant obligations – including period of residency. So, a minority of those who acquire citizenship later return to the country of their birth. what of all those refugees like les murray and co who fled persecution in european countries now denizens of democracy – time can wrought change, you know.

Well, one must concede that many of our Vietnamese and Lebanese refugees from the 80’s have visited their country of origin now that they are politically stable and free from civil war. I don’t know of too many Iraqi’s, Afghani’s, Tamils or Iranians that are too keen to go home though.

And as for Les Murray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xs1lUK4jas

Whilst I am sure that a part of the plan is to advertise heavily in ways that western Sydney voters will have maximum exposure to “tough on boat people”, I don’t actually disagree with the plan.

I don’t remember exact percentages, but the largest number of refugee arrivals in this country come by plane (more than 90% if I remember correctly). The reason why we hear so much more about boats is usually a plane ride is pretty uneventful compared to seeing a boat load of asylum seekers drowning off the coast.

Whilst I will admit I have not read the full extent of this policy, my understanding is that it removes the product which Indonesian people smugglers sell, aka a life in Australia. It does not stop someone from coming here and claiming asylum, what it does however stop is people smugglers selling spaces on unseaworthy boats for large amounts of money.

Whilst we talk about it, people arriving here without a visa and claiming asylum regardless of the method of arrival is perfectly legal. The large majority who arrive here are given refugee status, and they are not taking “our jobs’. The majority of them even once they are allowed to work take the jobs which the average Aussie does not want to do. The majority of them don’t bring the troubles from their home land here either. I’m not going to say that every refugee which comes here is an angel, but I do believe the percentage of refugee’s who do cause trouble are in the very low percentages.

DUB said :

Majority of asylum seekers claim that if they are returned to their country of origin they will face death.
Yet, as soon as they get Aussie Citizenship granted, they effing go off to their country for a holiday every year. What happened to ” I will be killed if I return”?

It should be compulsory to strip them off the Australian citizenship if they are found to be doing just that.Only the real refugees shall be allowed. That means we’ll probably have only couple of hundred genuine refugees every year at the most.

sorry, evidence please? what a bollocks load… and they don’t get citizenship until they fulfil all relevant obligations – including period of residency. So, a minority of those who acquire citizenship later return to the country of their birth. what of all those refugees like les murray and co who fled persecution in european countries now denizens of democracy – time can wrought change, you know.

neanderthalsis1:42 pm 24 Jul 13

justin heywood said :

neanderthalsis said :

It is a sad and sorry state of affairs when the most logical and indeed the most compassionate policy on asylum seekers is from the Palmer United Party.

Palmer’s (PUP’s) policy is …. “Revising the current Australian Government’s Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle”

The policy sounds good, but how do we achieve it? (Palmer says says that we should talk to Indonesia about ‘enforcing maritime laws’). Oh really, it’s that simple?

This is my problem with the whole debate. Howard’s hardline stance was widely criticised as inhumane and excessive, given the low numbers. Rudd’s more ‘humane’ approach (2007) actually resulted in a flood of asylum seekers and a lot more deaths and misery. The Greens are encouraging us to be much more ‘humane’ in our approach than Rudd ever was (abolition of detention, immediate access to welfare etc)

It seems to me the the more accommodating we are to people who arrive without papers from Indonesia, the more will come, given market forces. Do the critics of a more hardline approach believe that we should welcome anyone into Australia, no matter how they get here? Would that not result in an ever greater influx of people claiming to be refugees and thus more deaths at sea, overwhelming pressure on DIAC, the Navy and social services. Should we have borders at all?

My own view is that we should vastly increase our humanitarian immigration intake (we can afford it), but take a hardline on the boats. Let the insults fly.

Clive, earlier this year, said that we should fly the asylum seekers to Aus at their own expense rather than have them pay 10k to a people smuggler. Once onshore, they could be processed and either released into the community or sent back if found not to be a genuine refugee.

While this won’t placate the queue jumper argument, it is more sensible than shipping them at great expense to PNG or the Somolons.

PUP policy

Ah yes, let’s turn a discussion about the rights or wrongs of using photographs of asylum seekers, into a discussion about refugee policy generally.

There’s a very simple way to use someone’s face – you ask their permission. Also the idea that pixellating it makes it impossible to recognise is wrong – people who know the person may still recognise them, and also I think there are computer programs which will depixellate. So if they say “no” to using their face, you probably shouldn’t use their photo at all.

Since the original writer has floated some conspiracy theories, here’s another – it was an actor and pixellating their face prevents them being recognised as an actor.

The Immigration department does seem to be entering the political arena in the lead-up to an election, much like it and Defence were in the Howard era. If you happen to work in any of those departments, please don’t leave your conscience in the car. You are a public servant, and that sometimes means saying “no” to your political masters.

IP

Roundhead89 said :

Don’t be fooled by this, it isn’t an attempt to crack down on illegal asylum seekers it is purely a short-term political fix to neutralise the illegal boat people issue in the western suburbs where the illegal aliens are dumped and causing huge social problems.

Graham Richardson said on Sky News that this “PNG Solution” is only intended to run in the leadup to the election to wedge Tony Abbott. Labor has to constantly appease the Left and their fellow travellers in the refugee/human rights lobby.

The only solution to the illegal asylum seeker issue is the reintroduction of the Howard policies including Temporary Protection Visas and towing back the boats by the Special Forces. Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

Hmmmm, time for a quiz:

1. Point to the Australian Commonwealth laws being broken by ‘asylum seekers’ (hint: Trick question. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.)

2.What’s the mode of transport used by the bulk of people applying for refugee status in Australia (hint: it’s not boats)?

If we let the camera run and see their faces there will be privacy issues and some bleeding heart taxpayer funded human rights lawyer will sue the Commonwealth for damages.

devils_advocate12:44 pm 24 Jul 13

Roundhead89 said :

Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

Could you please elaborate on the numbers that constitute a ‘swarm’ and also the damage that is being done by said swarm.

justin heywood12:24 pm 24 Jul 13

neanderthalsis said :

It is a sad and sorry state of affairs when the most logical and indeed the most compassionate policy on asylum seekers is from the Palmer United Party.

Palmer’s (PUP’s) policy is …. “Revising the current Australian Government’s Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle”

The policy sounds good, but how do we achieve it? (Palmer says says that we should talk to Indonesia about ‘enforcing maritime laws’). Oh really, it’s that simple?

This is my problem with the whole debate. Howard’s hardline stance was widely criticised as inhumane and excessive, given the low numbers. Rudd’s more ‘humane’ approach (2007) actually resulted in a flood of asylum seekers and a lot more deaths and misery. The Greens are encouraging us to be much more ‘humane’ in our approach than Rudd ever was (abolition of detention, immediate access to welfare etc)

It seems to me the the more accommodating we are to people who arrive without papers from Indonesia, the more will come, given market forces. Do the critics of a more hardline approach believe that we should welcome anyone into Australia, no matter how they get here? Would that not result in an ever greater influx of people claiming to be refugees and thus more deaths at sea, overwhelming pressure on DIAC, the Navy and social services. Should we have borders at all?

My own view is that we should vastly increase our humanitarian immigration intake (we can afford it), but take a hardline on the boats. Let the insults fly.

Roundhead89 said :

Don’t be fooled by this, it isn’t an attempt to crack down on illegal asylum seekers it is purely a short-term political fix to neutralise the illegal boat people issue in the western suburbs where the illegal aliens are dumped and causing huge social problems.

I think so too. There was an interview with Iranian man yesterday morning on ABC radio, who is in Indonesia at the moment, waiting for his boat trip to Australia. He said that he does not mind going to PNG, as he will still be getting all the benefits paid as if he was living on Australian soil, so do many others in his camp near some village think.

I am all up for unmarked submarines, practising live target shooting off the coast of Christmas Island.

Majority of asylum seekers claim that if they are returned to their country of origin they will face death.
Yet, as soon as they get Aussie Citizenship granted, they effing go off to their country for a holiday every year. What happened to ” I will be killed if I return”?

It should be compulsory to strip them off the Australian citizenship if they are found to be doing just that.Only the real refugees shall be allowed. That means we’ll probably have only couple of hundred genuine refugees every year at the most.

Don’t be fooled by this, it isn’t an attempt to crack down on illegal asylum seekers it is purely a short-term political fix to neutralise the illegal boat people issue in the western suburbs where the illegal aliens are dumped and causing huge social problems.

Graham Richardson said on Sky News that this “PNG Solution” is only intended to run in the leadup to the election to wedge Tony Abbott. Labor has to constantly appease the Left and their fellow travellers in the refugee/human rights lobby.

The only solution to the illegal asylum seeker issue is the reintroduction of the Howard policies including Temporary Protection Visas and towing back the boats by the Special Forces. Only then will we be free of illegal asylum seekers swarming into the country and all the damage they are doing.

neanderthalsis11:03 am 24 Jul 13

I consider myself a conservative, more wet than dry though, and I was appalled at the stance of Rudd has taken on this. Is this his re-birth as a hardcore neo-conservative modeled off Thatcher?

Rudd, in 2006 said:
Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst. That is why the government’s proposal to excise the Australian mainland from the entire Australian migration zone and to rely almost exclusively on the so-called Pacific Solution should be the cause of great ethical concern to all the Christian churches.

Has he abandoned his morals and given up on ethical solutions just to be popular? Rudd won the 2007 election by claiming he was Just Like Howard, but a younger, friendlier version, now he wants to be Just Like Tony, but an angrier, more bitter version.

It is a sad and sorry state of affairs when the most logical and indeed the most compassionate policy on asylum seekers is from the Palmer United Party.

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.