Finally A Military "Shield Of Steel" To Keep Out Illegals.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was merely trying to think of an answer to a question posed re how to stop them in International waters?
Now for that crime I am a redneck??
Well IF I am a redneck I propose much stronger actions, like sinking one or two of the boats, that would stop the flow of these illegals once word got around......
"Redneck lame"
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: lame ]
Now for that crime I am a redneck??
Well IF I am a redneck I propose much stronger actions, like sinking one or two of the boats, that would stop the flow of these illegals once word got around......
"Redneck lame"
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: lame ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oztralia, near MEL
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gezzz lame,
I never before thought of you as a redneck
Whilst your suggestion of a few sinkings would deter some, if not all boat people for a while, I think 12 months down the track it would be back to the current situation. Besides which, I sort of have a moral issue with sinking a boat or two.
On the other hand, should the Sheild of Steel happen across the remains (floating debris) of a boat wreck, then by all means lets make the most of the situation and publicise it loud and long.
It's about time Little Johnny Arthur took a stand, I just hope it doesn't all go to hell straight after the election.
As for what can we do with those that actually arrive on out shores? Well if we put them directly on to a plane to their homeland it will certainly disuade future boat people & employ more pilots!
The most annoying aspect of the last week has been the bloody minded intervention of a minority of bleeding hearts who took high court action in Melbourne to prevent the duly elected Governement from carrying out the wishes of a huge majority of the population. HOW UNDEMONCRATIC CAN AUSTRALIANS BE?
The court should have thown this "case" out the door in the first 5 minutes. I guess there was some technical legal reason why this couldn't be done?? 
Lame, I note that you are STILL posting just before me!
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: Feeton Terrafirma ]
I never before thought of you as a redneck
Whilst your suggestion of a few sinkings would deter some, if not all boat people for a while, I think 12 months down the track it would be back to the current situation. Besides which, I sort of have a moral issue with sinking a boat or two.
On the other hand, should the Sheild of Steel happen across the remains (floating debris) of a boat wreck, then by all means lets make the most of the situation and publicise it loud and long.
It's about time Little Johnny Arthur took a stand, I just hope it doesn't all go to hell straight after the election.
As for what can we do with those that actually arrive on out shores? Well if we put them directly on to a plane to their homeland it will certainly disuade future boat people & employ more pilots!
The most annoying aspect of the last week has been the bloody minded intervention of a minority of bleeding hearts who took high court action in Melbourne to prevent the duly elected Governement from carrying out the wishes of a huge majority of the population. HOW UNDEMONCRATIC CAN AUSTRALIANS BE?
The court should have thown this "case" out the door in the first 5 minutes. I guess there was some technical legal reason why this couldn't be done?? Lame, I note that you are STILL posting just before me!
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: Feeton Terrafirma ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Feeton,
Fear not, of course I am NOT a redneck, some people cannot debate anything without name calling. Someone infered I was a redneck, so hey I said okay whatever, I will be a redneck.
Then I said, IF I WAS a redneck, I would propose ...............
Keep those posts coming you PPRuNaholic....
Best regards,
"Redneck lame"
Fear not, of course I am NOT a redneck, some people cannot debate anything without name calling. Someone infered I was a redneck, so hey I said okay whatever, I will be a redneck.
Then I said, IF I WAS a redneck, I would propose ...............
Keep those posts coming you PPRuNaholic....
Best regards,
"Redneck lame"
Evertonian
Well, I've enjoyed reading everyone's opinion thanks LAME, but it seems the majority support the Governments stand in this issue. I too am happy that there is some action finally taking place. Achilles, this is for you.
1.Hysteria & paranoia go hand in hand when national sentiment is ignited. Australia is indeed a lucky country & we are duty bound to protect that for ALL Australians. I mean those that are born here, naturalised citizens, legal residents, legal immigrants & recognized refugees. We have signed conventions regarding refugees & we accept anyone (to the best of my knowledge) that can legally claim to be a refugee. As such, the "refugees" on the Tampa will have their cases examined & be granted refugee status per the legal requirements. The laws of this land, those that make this Godzone, are being turned against us by illegal refugees who have been given contacts to call should their status be questioned.They already know what the loopholes are to the point that this sort of action becomes necessary. In other words, its not just smugglers from Indonesia, et al, there are people already in Australia making a buck out of this too! The saddest part of all this is that genuine refugees are being caught up in the system because of this abuse.
2. Yes, Indonesia is getting out of this scot free, but there is now a focus on them as people are finally asking,"Well, if they came from Indonesia, why won't they take them back? One way traffic only?" Don't forget, with all due respect to our brave citizens in the armed forces, Indonesia would wipe our AR$es in 30 days if they wanted to. So don't blame any government for taking a soflty softly approach to Indonesia, & that's both sides of the fence, let's not forget the journalists in E. Timor in the '70's. But I digress.
3. A Coast Guard is a great idea, but it's a bluddy big ocean out there & I would imagine it would involve a force of similar size to the Navy. Do we need another Navy by a different name? Why not upgrade the Navy's role & equipment. Global Hawk's coming don't forget.
4. If it would make you happy, I'll personally greet every GENUINE refugee that arrives here & drive them to the Hilton if that helps? Why don't I put myself in the shoes of someone who is waiting for years on a list, in a camp, in a desert, under a fundamentalist type regime that treats me like dirt, or a dictator that is trying a bit-o-genocide on me 'coz I listened to some idiot in the White house that wouldn't back me up! Oh, & perhaps I have no money to bribe my way here & have to watch less deserving individuals get ahead of me on a boat. Sure, the boat's tough, but do you think arriving first class on Aeroflot would help their cause?
6.(? I missed 5) I think we still are fair minded. Genuine refugees are given a home here. I seem to recall a $hitload of people arriving from the Balkans not too long ago. Granted, they were temporary, as was the conditions of their stay, but some did successfully lodge an appeal to stay. The system is here for refugees & it is here for those who are initially denied to get a second chance to state their case. I personally think we bend over backwards to help them.
I guess we differ in opinion a great deal & I don't wish to start a slanging match, therefore, I respect your opinion. I just think that there is no real solution to this problem whilst the world is in such disarray. Yes, if I was in Afghanistan, I'd do everything to get my family out & if I knew that I was a great chance to queue jump by paying lots of cash that I had, then sure, I'd do the same thing. In a more compassionate society, we'd let them in straight away & yes, I'm saddened that that is not the way of the world, but to open the floodgates & not restrict entry would be foolish. All people see is a big fat continent with loads of empty space. Do you think they want to go back to an arid desert? As for the South Africans, lets get to the real issue there. They are white in a predominantly black continent. Think of the Zimbaweans & what's going on there, perhaps that is why they want to leave. It would be like the Aboriginals saying "Right, we've had a gutfull of you white fellas. pi$$ off back to England (and they probably have every right to!)"
Phew! I'm now going to my rocking chair on the front porch & play my banjo!
1.Hysteria & paranoia go hand in hand when national sentiment is ignited. Australia is indeed a lucky country & we are duty bound to protect that for ALL Australians. I mean those that are born here, naturalised citizens, legal residents, legal immigrants & recognized refugees. We have signed conventions regarding refugees & we accept anyone (to the best of my knowledge) that can legally claim to be a refugee. As such, the "refugees" on the Tampa will have their cases examined & be granted refugee status per the legal requirements. The laws of this land, those that make this Godzone, are being turned against us by illegal refugees who have been given contacts to call should their status be questioned.They already know what the loopholes are to the point that this sort of action becomes necessary. In other words, its not just smugglers from Indonesia, et al, there are people already in Australia making a buck out of this too! The saddest part of all this is that genuine refugees are being caught up in the system because of this abuse.
2. Yes, Indonesia is getting out of this scot free, but there is now a focus on them as people are finally asking,"Well, if they came from Indonesia, why won't they take them back? One way traffic only?" Don't forget, with all due respect to our brave citizens in the armed forces, Indonesia would wipe our AR$es in 30 days if they wanted to. So don't blame any government for taking a soflty softly approach to Indonesia, & that's both sides of the fence, let's not forget the journalists in E. Timor in the '70's. But I digress.
3. A Coast Guard is a great idea, but it's a bluddy big ocean out there & I would imagine it would involve a force of similar size to the Navy. Do we need another Navy by a different name? Why not upgrade the Navy's role & equipment. Global Hawk's coming don't forget.
4. If it would make you happy, I'll personally greet every GENUINE refugee that arrives here & drive them to the Hilton if that helps? Why don't I put myself in the shoes of someone who is waiting for years on a list, in a camp, in a desert, under a fundamentalist type regime that treats me like dirt, or a dictator that is trying a bit-o-genocide on me 'coz I listened to some idiot in the White house that wouldn't back me up! Oh, & perhaps I have no money to bribe my way here & have to watch less deserving individuals get ahead of me on a boat. Sure, the boat's tough, but do you think arriving first class on Aeroflot would help their cause?
6.(? I missed 5) I think we still are fair minded. Genuine refugees are given a home here. I seem to recall a $hitload of people arriving from the Balkans not too long ago. Granted, they were temporary, as was the conditions of their stay, but some did successfully lodge an appeal to stay. The system is here for refugees & it is here for those who are initially denied to get a second chance to state their case. I personally think we bend over backwards to help them.
I guess we differ in opinion a great deal & I don't wish to start a slanging match, therefore, I respect your opinion. I just think that there is no real solution to this problem whilst the world is in such disarray. Yes, if I was in Afghanistan, I'd do everything to get my family out & if I knew that I was a great chance to queue jump by paying lots of cash that I had, then sure, I'd do the same thing. In a more compassionate society, we'd let them in straight away & yes, I'm saddened that that is not the way of the world, but to open the floodgates & not restrict entry would be foolish. All people see is a big fat continent with loads of empty space. Do you think they want to go back to an arid desert? As for the South Africans, lets get to the real issue there. They are white in a predominantly black continent. Think of the Zimbaweans & what's going on there, perhaps that is why they want to leave. It would be like the Aboriginals saying "Right, we've had a gutfull of you white fellas. pi$$ off back to England (and they probably have every right to!)"
Phew! I'm now going to my rocking chair on the front porch & play my banjo!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busta, I appreciate your comments.
I affirm that opening the gates to Australia for the world is NOT sensible nor practical.
If you look at countries like Italy and Greece in the late 90's for example, with Albanians flooding across the border into Greece; I was there at the time, and there were Albanians wandering the streets of Salonika (you could see them in Stalinist style clothing and their looks in general) and sleeping in parks, in fields around villages etc. Boatloads arrived in Italy carrying hundreds on a weekly and even daily basis, now THAT is a flood. none of us want this here in Australia, me included.
Compared to that,we have here in Australia what can only be described as a 'trickle' in real terms. However, I am sure it will get worse.
In defense of the government.... (I am choking on this). At least for once, Howard made a (reasonably) quick decision, and stuck to it!! I say again, if he would get more political mileage out of letting the Tampa enter Australia, that's what would have happened. In the case of the Balkan refugees, the national sentiment was to bring them in, cause for years we were all shocked and dismayed at the barbaric goings on in Europe at the end of the 20th century, and so political brownie points with the population were gained. So, let's not be too easily pleased by the Howard government.
Now, let's not forget that we live in (supposedly) democratic society governed by laws (not mob rule) where there is a presumption of innocence. Our courts are there to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF AUSTRALIA, not to bow to public opinion, which at best, is ill informed and emotive. Therefore, if there is a possibility that the government has acted illegally, well, it is the right and DUTY of any Australian to challenge the government's actions. These are not bleeding hearts - they are defenders of OUR laws and any rights people have under these laws.
You cannot deny that successive governments have neglected our armed forces!! No one said it would be cheap to have a reasonable maritime patrol force - it's obvious that we need one. Look at our Air Force; we have somewhere in the vicinity of 43 fast jet pilots!!! World class pilots for sure, but that small a number is a national disgrace!! we (and they) deserve more!! Look at Greece, 8 million people, yet they have an airforce that is at least 4 times the size of Australias, and getting bigger, with modern aircraft (Block D F-16's Typhoons on the way) We're too cheap to put the money in, yet we shiver every time the Indonesians disagree with any of our actions. I find this intolerable. So far as the Indonesians are concerend, I am not saying that we should go to war, but, if you always act like a lap dog, you will always be treated as one. Politically, you can take a reasonable stand and point the finger where it needs to be pointed, not forever cowtailing it to that arrogant lot. When Australia (finally) supported the cessation of east Timor from Indonesia and no invasion happened, I doubt that calling a spade a spade regarding 400 odd illegal immigrants would incur an invasion by them either. By the way, have you any idea what kind of economy would be able to afford to invade this country?? The Indonesians, whilst having the manpower, do not have the finance to do such a thing. In any case, if they are such a threat, why do we have such a small armed forces?? Plus, can you imagine the US entertaining such a threat to their installations in Australia?? (not that we could rely on the US)
Now, the question begs - is it because these people come here 'illegally' or is it foreigners per se?? There is evidence of plenty of people arriving here 'legally' acting 'illegally' in this country. I would gladly extradite these elements to make room for genuine needy who arrived here 'illegally'.
All I am saying is, 'Calm down, this is not the end of Australia as we know it'. We should be happy, to a certain extent, to spread some of our good fortune around to those less fortunate than us, rather than get into a mass frenzy that 'the barbarians are breaching the walls'. But we should also protect what we have here, and that takes money. I would gladly sacrifice my 'prospective' tax cut to fund a better military, and social infrastructure. After all, the money I would receive wouldn't go far enough, so as a collective, we would be better off having the 'surplus' spent where it's needed, not just to remain in government coffers to be used to buy votes at the next election - it would take ALOT of money to get me to vote those clowns back in (not that Labour these days is any alternative - sad but true). We should focus on getting ourselves a government that is PRO ACTIVE rather than REACTIVE, but I digress....
If we're not careful, we might become an ugly society - I know none of us want this. Let's protect what we have, but also, let's leave some room for those that don't have.
Patience folks - these here are trying times, for more reasons than these - keeps your heads on and your hearts open.
PS Edited for typos & some content.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: Achilles ]
I affirm that opening the gates to Australia for the world is NOT sensible nor practical.
If you look at countries like Italy and Greece in the late 90's for example, with Albanians flooding across the border into Greece; I was there at the time, and there were Albanians wandering the streets of Salonika (you could see them in Stalinist style clothing and their looks in general) and sleeping in parks, in fields around villages etc. Boatloads arrived in Italy carrying hundreds on a weekly and even daily basis, now THAT is a flood. none of us want this here in Australia, me included.
Compared to that,we have here in Australia what can only be described as a 'trickle' in real terms. However, I am sure it will get worse.
In defense of the government.... (I am choking on this). At least for once, Howard made a (reasonably) quick decision, and stuck to it!! I say again, if he would get more political mileage out of letting the Tampa enter Australia, that's what would have happened. In the case of the Balkan refugees, the national sentiment was to bring them in, cause for years we were all shocked and dismayed at the barbaric goings on in Europe at the end of the 20th century, and so political brownie points with the population were gained. So, let's not be too easily pleased by the Howard government.
Now, let's not forget that we live in (supposedly) democratic society governed by laws (not mob rule) where there is a presumption of innocence. Our courts are there to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF AUSTRALIA, not to bow to public opinion, which at best, is ill informed and emotive. Therefore, if there is a possibility that the government has acted illegally, well, it is the right and DUTY of any Australian to challenge the government's actions. These are not bleeding hearts - they are defenders of OUR laws and any rights people have under these laws.
You cannot deny that successive governments have neglected our armed forces!! No one said it would be cheap to have a reasonable maritime patrol force - it's obvious that we need one. Look at our Air Force; we have somewhere in the vicinity of 43 fast jet pilots!!! World class pilots for sure, but that small a number is a national disgrace!! we (and they) deserve more!! Look at Greece, 8 million people, yet they have an airforce that is at least 4 times the size of Australias, and getting bigger, with modern aircraft (Block D F-16's Typhoons on the way) We're too cheap to put the money in, yet we shiver every time the Indonesians disagree with any of our actions. I find this intolerable. So far as the Indonesians are concerend, I am not saying that we should go to war, but, if you always act like a lap dog, you will always be treated as one. Politically, you can take a reasonable stand and point the finger where it needs to be pointed, not forever cowtailing it to that arrogant lot. When Australia (finally) supported the cessation of east Timor from Indonesia and no invasion happened, I doubt that calling a spade a spade regarding 400 odd illegal immigrants would incur an invasion by them either. By the way, have you any idea what kind of economy would be able to afford to invade this country?? The Indonesians, whilst having the manpower, do not have the finance to do such a thing. In any case, if they are such a threat, why do we have such a small armed forces?? Plus, can you imagine the US entertaining such a threat to their installations in Australia?? (not that we could rely on the US)
Now, the question begs - is it because these people come here 'illegally' or is it foreigners per se?? There is evidence of plenty of people arriving here 'legally' acting 'illegally' in this country. I would gladly extradite these elements to make room for genuine needy who arrived here 'illegally'.
All I am saying is, 'Calm down, this is not the end of Australia as we know it'. We should be happy, to a certain extent, to spread some of our good fortune around to those less fortunate than us, rather than get into a mass frenzy that 'the barbarians are breaching the walls'. But we should also protect what we have here, and that takes money. I would gladly sacrifice my 'prospective' tax cut to fund a better military, and social infrastructure. After all, the money I would receive wouldn't go far enough, so as a collective, we would be better off having the 'surplus' spent where it's needed, not just to remain in government coffers to be used to buy votes at the next election - it would take ALOT of money to get me to vote those clowns back in (not that Labour these days is any alternative - sad but true). We should focus on getting ourselves a government that is PRO ACTIVE rather than REACTIVE, but I digress....
If we're not careful, we might become an ugly society - I know none of us want this. Let's protect what we have, but also, let's leave some room for those that don't have.
Patience folks - these here are trying times, for more reasons than these - keeps your heads on and your hearts open.
PS Edited for typos & some content.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: Achilles ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Political alright!
So the little fishing boats come out full of illegals and see an OZ warship ( equiped for but not with weapons ...but thats another story) they pull the plug, call mayday, and the whole issue starts again. And again.
So the little fishing boats come out full of illegals and see an OZ warship ( equiped for but not with weapons ...but thats another story) they pull the plug, call mayday, and the whole issue starts again. And again.
Guest
Posts: n/a
C'mon Lame I wasn't calling you a Redneck only comenting that you sounded like one. Worldwide there is a tide of refugee's trying to find a new place to live. I have a small amount of knowledge of these matters from my experience as a maritime patrol pilot. There are those that are trying to hide from their past i.e criminals, war criminals, shonkey business deals and many more reasons why it is desirable to arrive in a country under some sort of false pretence. These people should not be allowed in and when caught should be sent home. There are also those that are persecuted for their beliefs, skin color, birth place or even their name and have a genuine concern for themselves and their famity's lives that would rather face the derperate situation of a leaky boat, crocodiles, their lives in the hands of the people smugglers and then jail in Australia than continue to live in their birth country. I believe that those people should be assisted and allowed to stay. The problem is to find out who the bad guys are which is a burden on the tax payer. The problem will not go away and the country needs a good detection system (it is well on the way there with coastwatch) and the ability to determine and find out who should be allowed and who should be kicked out again (immigration know their stuff there as well). All this sabre rattling and using words like "wall of steel" ans stand offs at sea is just a lot of political grandstanding in an election year and sadly from the other side of the world it makes Australians look bad (they have an immigration problem here as well yo know). I think that Helen Clark's soap box statements about taking the people on the Tampa reeks of a dig at Australians and has just ensured that the tide of Immigrant vessels will be directed toward NZ in the future which will (and probably allways has been) go undetected because they don't have the rescourse to patrol their coastline effectively.
Evertonian
This is quite a good thread IMHO. Not too much rhetoric, & good points allround.
Achilles, the funny thing is, I agree with pretty much all you are saying, yet I still think we did the right thing with the Tampa. What I don't know about this particular incident is exactly where did the Tampa pick them up & what was the real reason they turned away from Indonesia, if it was the closest port?
I don't think there will ever be a cut & dried answer to this problem. They broke our laws by sailing here without permission or permits etc, yet they claim refugee status which we "legally" accept at face value (generally) prior to processing. As far as I see it, they cancel each other out.
Maybe the solution would be to process them say in Afghanistan. Yeah, I know, the Taliban are real good like that!! But if we seriously want to stop the smuggling, we have to give them better choices. Perhaps this may be something the UN should now look at. Establish where they are coming from & try to begin dialogue with whichever country people are trying to get the hell out of! I guess it would be bluddy hard to do this in Afghanistan, but considering that the government there felt strongly enough to comment on the plight of their nationals, maybe there is a way.
As this is a global problem, I think the UN should be setting the agenda for the resolution of this problem, rather than a single nation becomming a pariah for taking a stand in the protection of its borders, rightly or wrongly.
Achilles, the funny thing is, I agree with pretty much all you are saying, yet I still think we did the right thing with the Tampa. What I don't know about this particular incident is exactly where did the Tampa pick them up & what was the real reason they turned away from Indonesia, if it was the closest port?
I don't think there will ever be a cut & dried answer to this problem. They broke our laws by sailing here without permission or permits etc, yet they claim refugee status which we "legally" accept at face value (generally) prior to processing. As far as I see it, they cancel each other out.
Maybe the solution would be to process them say in Afghanistan. Yeah, I know, the Taliban are real good like that!! But if we seriously want to stop the smuggling, we have to give them better choices. Perhaps this may be something the UN should now look at. Establish where they are coming from & try to begin dialogue with whichever country people are trying to get the hell out of! I guess it would be bluddy hard to do this in Afghanistan, but considering that the government there felt strongly enough to comment on the plight of their nationals, maybe there is a way.
As this is a global problem, I think the UN should be setting the agenda for the resolution of this problem, rather than a single nation becomming a pariah for taking a stand in the protection of its borders, rightly or wrongly.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oztralia, near MEL
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gezzz lame,
Looks like your not a redneck
I notice that you have taken to posting just after me! Oh well good luck with it.
I think it may now be time to consider the next move in the boat people saga. NEXT step you say? Well yes actually I don't think the "Shield of Steel" will keep all the boat people out, and further strategies are rquired to deter them. The next obvious move is to process those who do get to Oz quickly. I mean, turn them around and out the door in a few days, not even a week, but 2 or 3 days. Those that do qualify as legitimate refugees should be assimilated into society quickly too.
Of course the boat people that miss out on legitimate refugee status must be made a specticale of, including, where possible, public TV coverage of the deportation event. The more that it is publicised that boat people are sent home, the less that we will have trying to get here.
Anyway, Rant Off.
Now lame, now. Post away!
Looks like your not a redneck
I notice that you have taken to posting just after me! Oh well good luck with it.
I think it may now be time to consider the next move in the boat people saga. NEXT step you say? Well yes actually I don't think the "Shield of Steel" will keep all the boat people out, and further strategies are rquired to deter them. The next obvious move is to process those who do get to Oz quickly. I mean, turn them around and out the door in a few days, not even a week, but 2 or 3 days. Those that do qualify as legitimate refugees should be assimilated into society quickly too.
Of course the boat people that miss out on legitimate refugee status must be made a specticale of, including, where possible, public TV coverage of the deportation event. The more that it is publicised that boat people are sent home, the less that we will have trying to get here.
Anyway, Rant Off.
Now lame, now. Post away!
Guest
Posts: n/a
*Govt claims victory in stance over asylum seekers*
The Federal Government is claiming victory over its stance against
asylum seekers.
The Government has so far achieved its aim of preventing the asylum
seekers from entering the country.
Four Indonesians who crewed the ferry which had been bringing the people
to Australia have been charged and face up to 20 years jail if found
guilty.
The Justice Minister, Chris Ellison, says Australia will keep cracking
down on people smugglers.
"People smuggling is a callous criminal activity, it is an organised
criminal activity which we're seeing across the world," Senator Ellison
said.
An AC Neilsen poll in "The Age" and "Sydney Morning Herald" shows
support for the Prime Minister is up 11 per cent to 57 per cent and a 77
per cent approval rate for the Government's actions over the Tampa.
Mr Howard insists his actions were not simply aimed at winning support
for the looming election.
"I did it because I thought it was right and it remains my view that the
election at the end of the year is going to be very tough for us," the
Prime Minister said.
The Federal Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, is playing down the latest
opinion poll results.
Mr Beazley says opinion polls will vary in the lead-up to the federal
election which is expected to be called in the next few months.
He does not believe his criticism over the Government's refusal to allow
the asylum seekers to land on Australian soil will cost him victory.
The Federal Government is claiming victory over its stance against
asylum seekers.
The Government has so far achieved its aim of preventing the asylum
seekers from entering the country.
Four Indonesians who crewed the ferry which had been bringing the people
to Australia have been charged and face up to 20 years jail if found
guilty.
The Justice Minister, Chris Ellison, says Australia will keep cracking
down on people smugglers.
"People smuggling is a callous criminal activity, it is an organised
criminal activity which we're seeing across the world," Senator Ellison
said.
An AC Neilsen poll in "The Age" and "Sydney Morning Herald" shows
support for the Prime Minister is up 11 per cent to 57 per cent and a 77
per cent approval rate for the Government's actions over the Tampa.
Mr Howard insists his actions were not simply aimed at winning support
for the looming election.
"I did it because I thought it was right and it remains my view that the
election at the end of the year is going to be very tough for us," the
Prime Minister said.
The Federal Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, is playing down the latest
opinion poll results.
Mr Beazley says opinion polls will vary in the lead-up to the federal
election which is expected to be called in the next few months.
He does not believe his criticism over the Government's refusal to allow
the asylum seekers to land on Australian soil will cost him victory.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shield of Steel wont be anywhere near as effective as advertised., nor will Coastguard. So you intercept these guys with a plane.. what next? Take their photo? You can sell them to them when they dock, or post them on the internet so loved ones in Australia can catch up on the relations progress in real time. Intercept with a boat? That already been discussed and scuttling fishing boats is about to become a craze. Arrest the crews? They are using minors now. Be assured every move made will be broadcast around the world as we make it, and spun in the most damaging way possible.
My two cents. Pass a law stating that anyone who can afford to pay that much for passage isnt really destitute, and therefore has a lower priority for consideration. Modify maritime law to state that its a crime to take pregnant women and children aboard a substandard vessel with the aim of using them as pawns in a sinking, a hunger strike, a threat of 'suicide' etc. I thought hijacking was already a crime, but seems Im wrong.. in this case. And if Australia is going to take refugees, take them direct from the camps in Pakistan. Fill the quota from the source, take the really needy and law abiding, and send the rest back with a three year bar on future applications. THAT would work, not Orions at 1000 feet.
My two cents. Pass a law stating that anyone who can afford to pay that much for passage isnt really destitute, and therefore has a lower priority for consideration. Modify maritime law to state that its a crime to take pregnant women and children aboard a substandard vessel with the aim of using them as pawns in a sinking, a hunger strike, a threat of 'suicide' etc. I thought hijacking was already a crime, but seems Im wrong.. in this case. And if Australia is going to take refugees, take them direct from the camps in Pakistan. Fill the quota from the source, take the really needy and law abiding, and send the rest back with a three year bar on future applications. THAT would work, not Orions at 1000 feet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But we are falling into the trap of believing that to be a refugee you have to be finacially destitute or on the bones of your ass. Not too many years ago the the Jewish minority were persecuted by the Nazi regime. They were not finacially destitute at that time however we all know what happened to those that failed to make refugee status.
Today they come on boats like it or not, have been for a while and passing laws won't deter them so I reckon they are still going to come in the future. Unfortunatly the only way to manage the problem successfully is to detect them (coastwatch aircraft), catch them entering illegally (naval vessels), filter out the genuine cases and send the rest home and hopefully lock up as many of the organizers as possible. This is a real problem that costs money that is going to have to come from government defence budget.
Today they come on boats like it or not, have been for a while and passing laws won't deter them so I reckon they are still going to come in the future. Unfortunatly the only way to manage the problem successfully is to detect them (coastwatch aircraft), catch them entering illegally (naval vessels), filter out the genuine cases and send the rest home and hopefully lock up as many of the organizers as possible. This is a real problem that costs money that is going to have to come from government defence budget.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghanistan is the kind of country/situation the UN Convention was invented for.
"Bob Hawke" - if Labor has lost its grass roots on this then any "Labour" party worth the name would conclude they were better off finding new roots.
I suppose the NZ part of this is more of a refugee swap - Afghans going south, Skyhawk pilots going north
Seriously, if Indonesia policed its borders properly instead of just offering a bit of tarmac and some Shell unleaded to the P3s things might be different. Looks like the Indonesians have been taking lessons from the French Interior Ministry on how to p!ss your neighbours off with refugee transhipment.
"Bob Hawke" - if Labor has lost its grass roots on this then any "Labour" party worth the name would conclude they were better off finding new roots.
I suppose the NZ part of this is more of a refugee swap - Afghans going south, Skyhawk pilots going north
Seriously, if Indonesia policed its borders properly instead of just offering a bit of tarmac and some Shell unleaded to the P3s things might be different. Looks like the Indonesians have been taking lessons from the French Interior Ministry on how to p!ss your neighbours off with refugee transhipment.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Megawati Sukarnoputri's not returning John Howard's telephone calls showed more gutlessness on her part than a snub. If she had the balls she would have made the contact and told him to take a flying leap, if that is what she felt.
Maybe a tactic as part of the "Shield of Steel" could be for spotter aircraft to leaflet drop likely vessels heading our way. The leaflet telling it like it is in different languages ie something to the effect that Australia has strict laws against illegal immigrants, the fact that they will be placed in detention centres until their eligibility for refugee status can be determined - and if they don't have passports or other documentation this will delay the process considerably - and if they are found ineligible they will be deported. Also detail the penalties for crew members manning the vessel.
That might make them think about proceeding further south -
Maybe a tactic as part of the "Shield of Steel" could be for spotter aircraft to leaflet drop likely vessels heading our way. The leaflet telling it like it is in different languages ie something to the effect that Australia has strict laws against illegal immigrants, the fact that they will be placed in detention centres until their eligibility for refugee status can be determined - and if they don't have passports or other documentation this will delay the process considerably - and if they are found ineligible they will be deported. Also detail the penalties for crew members manning the vessel.
That might make them think about proceeding further south -
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've actually conducted an "airborne arrest procedure" many years ago whilst on exchange with the RAF and thought it may be of interest here.
The sortie was a fisheries protection patrol, the objective being to record the position, time, nationality, etc, of fishing trawlers conducting fishing within UK waters. The object of interest this particular day (sighted via gyro-stabilised bino's) was not listed on our onboard documentation as having a license to fish in UK waters.
Once positive identification was made, an RN jetfoil on Fishery duties was contacted to investigate, and pending the arrival of the jetfoil, we initiated an airborne arrest procedure.
Basically, this involves a series of passes alongside the ship/boat/trawler/whatever and short-life markers are laid. Very lights are fired and the ship is instructed to stop using the Aldis lamp with the morse letter L (the international signal to stop).
The ship held its position while we stayed in orbit at 1,000 feet at 3-4nm away. Once the RN arrived, they released us from the "arrest" and they took over.
Anyway, thought the basics of the procedure might be of interest on this thread - provided your resourced, and the vessel in question co-operates, it works
TFM
The sortie was a fisheries protection patrol, the objective being to record the position, time, nationality, etc, of fishing trawlers conducting fishing within UK waters. The object of interest this particular day (sighted via gyro-stabilised bino's) was not listed on our onboard documentation as having a license to fish in UK waters.
Once positive identification was made, an RN jetfoil on Fishery duties was contacted to investigate, and pending the arrival of the jetfoil, we initiated an airborne arrest procedure.
Basically, this involves a series of passes alongside the ship/boat/trawler/whatever and short-life markers are laid. Very lights are fired and the ship is instructed to stop using the Aldis lamp with the morse letter L (the international signal to stop).
The ship held its position while we stayed in orbit at 1,000 feet at 3-4nm away. Once the RN arrived, they released us from the "arrest" and they took over.
Anyway, thought the basics of the procedure might be of interest on this thread - provided your resourced, and the vessel in question co-operates, it works
TFM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting segment on the SBS news last night, filmed inside the camp in Pakistan that most of these latest illegals came from.
They had interviews with relatives of some of the illegals that were on the Tampa, they confirmed that they had paid 4500 sterling (over $10000) to "agents" for the trip to Australia. They even spoke to the man who said he was the "agent", he denied he was a people smuggler just their agent, who confirmed this price. AUSTRALIA WAS THE CHEAPEST BECAUSE IT WAS THE EASIEST TO GET INTO........ England was the highest price, at from memory 10000 sterling, because it was the most popular destination and harder to get the illegals into?
Also (as discussed in jet blast) showed them playing Cricket, apparently the Afghanis in these camps inside Pakistan have taken to Cricket with a great passion.
They had interviews with relatives of some of the illegals that were on the Tampa, they confirmed that they had paid 4500 sterling (over $10000) to "agents" for the trip to Australia. They even spoke to the man who said he was the "agent", he denied he was a people smuggler just their agent, who confirmed this price. AUSTRALIA WAS THE CHEAPEST BECAUSE IT WAS THE EASIEST TO GET INTO........ England was the highest price, at from memory 10000 sterling, because it was the most popular destination and harder to get the illegals into?
Also (as discussed in jet blast) showed them playing Cricket, apparently the Afghanis in these camps inside Pakistan have taken to Cricket with a great passion.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two articles from Monday’s ‘Australian’ that will upset some from both ends of the political spectrum. Whatever your reaction to them, I believe they point to the unfortunate direction ill-advised Political Correctness is taking us in Australia. The migrant ‘industry’ screams ‘racist!’ at any one who dares question the politically correct view.
----------
Let hard heads, not halfwits, deal with illegals
Tampa’s load may have nothing to do with Taliban
By Frank Devine
THE Government is being hard--headed rather than hard-hearted —and reasonably effective for the time being in trying to halt the flood of illegal immigrants. The just-this-once public emotionalism about letting in the 438 passengers aboard the Tampa was soft-headed.
Extravagant comments on the issue - Tim Costello: “The Prime Minister’s actions have debased Australia” - verged on the half-witted. Nor have I seen so much joy (and exaggeration) about foreign expressions of contempt for Australia since Pauline Hanson was in her early prime. Claims that we have lost all the international goodwill acquired during the Olympics count in the half-witted column.
Who are the 433 people that the Tampa brought into Australian territory after rescuing them in international waters? A number of Fleet Street’s halfwits declared them to be Afghans because the horrific Taliban regime in Afghanistan makes it the most reasonable place to flee. But we do not know this to be so.
Illegal immigrants coming here by boat in recent months have differed from all the refugees of history. Of the 4141 who landed during the 2000-01 financial year, 80 per cent had no identity papers whatever. Most refugees cling to their papers as their most precious pos-sessions, as proof they are somebody, come from somewhere, have a right one day, perhaps, to return home.
When Serbia sought to drive ethnic Albanian Kosovars out of the country, they not only seized and destroyed their papers but attempted further to make them non-people by systematically destroying village records of birth and marriage, and land ownership. A particu-lar oddity about the 3200 newcomers who arrived in Australia without ID during 2000-01 is that most of them had it and presented papers in transit countries.
A boat carrying about 200 people, bound for Indonesia and Australia, was boarded last month by Cambodian offi-cials who demanded the passengers’ ID. Most produced Pakistani papers. (Voice print analysis indicates that a number of illegals claiming to be Afghan are prob-ably Pakistani. There may be consider-ably more Pakistanis among our invaders than official records list, for want of certainty.)
What happens to these ID documents before their owners reach Australia? Some are destroyed, some left with friends to be sent on by mail, some sold to the people smugglers to be used by the next batch of customers. Why do asylum seekers get rid of their papers before arriving in the country where they plan to seek asylum? Obvi-ously, to conceal their country of origin. Some countries offer more reason for refugee flight than others. Concealment of identity is a headache for immigration; not all that is hidden is innocent. A clergyman with long experience of immigrant communities in Australia puts forward the theory that some boat arrivals discard their ID because they don’t need It. They expect to be identified and assisted by relatives, friends or organisations already established here:
Certainly there is activity aplenty at this end of the exodus route. New arrivals are right up to date with the kinds of questions being asked by Australian immigration officers, with welfare ben-efits available and with addresses and telephone numbers for claiming them.
I am aware that some of this sounds carping. Hegel identifies tragedy as the clashing of right with right. Migrants seeking safety – even just a better life – and countries dfending their territory create a tragic Hegelian situation.
Some recent groups arriving here have contained more women and children than men. Immigration authorities believe many are coming in the hope of joining husbands and fathers who have gained a foothold. The idea makes the heart turn over. But the Government’s responsibility to take a stand against Illegal immigrants can’t be sensibly denied.
A tide of coerciveness is rising - hunger strikes and riots in detention camps, sob stories manufactured in them for gullible TV channels. We have had the captain of the Tampa forced by would-be invaders to head back to Aust-ralian territory from a course that would have returned them to Indonesia. We had the captain disobey lawful instruc-tion and push the Tampa into Austral-ian waters with an exaggerated excuse of medical emergency. We have had the Indonesian navy declare its determina-tion to block entry of the Tampa, carrying passengers who set out from an Indonesian port in an Indonesian boat.
Australia accepts 10,000 refugees a year and allows some form of residence to about 5000 illegals. Should we take more? Even many more? It needs to be considered. But would we want to give all the new places, if any, to Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis without ID, who make up most of the present Illegal influx? Instead of, say, to Palestinians? It’s our choice.
I
AM aware that some of this sounds carping. Hegel identifies tragedy as the
clashing of right with right. Migrants
seeking safety — even just a better life —and countries defending their territory create a tragic Hegelian situation.
Some recent groups arriving here have contained more women and children than men. Immigration authorities believe many are coming in the hope of joining husbands and fathers who have gained a foothold. The jdea makes the heart turn
-------
Ignoring the race factor doesn’t help
The ethnic connection must be addressed, says Janet Albrechtson
A former teacher in a French secondary school was so alarmed at the barbaric sexual abuse of young girls by gangs of young migrant men that he directed a movie called ‘La Squale’, which realistically depicted the gang rape of a young girl in a cellar. After its release in December last year, it became one of France’s most popular movies. The director, Fabrice Genestal, said at the time: “My film must serve as an alarm bell.”
In Australia recent newspaper reports have set similar alarm bells ringing. However, migrant community leaders encourage us to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue of racial motivation in a spate of vicious attacks on white women by young Lebanese men in Bankstown and other Sydney suburbs.
This approach was most recently mim-icked in the comments of Justice Megan Latham when she handed out lenient sentences to the perpetrators of a hei-nous gang rape of a young Australian woman in Sydney.
Latham said: “There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences.” Sub-sequent newspaper reports have shown there was plenty of evidence to support a “racial element” but the plea bargaining process meant Latham was denied this information.
What is surprising is why Latham said anything at all. If race was not an issue, wasn’t it enough that she remain silent? Or were her gratuitous comments orchestrated by the plea bargaining pro-cess to douse a highly emotive and increasingly heated debate about ethnic crime?
Her comments fool no one. They sim-ply pander to the Left, who would have us obliterate any ethnic descriptors from our language and fire up the extremists on the Right who blame a religion they know little about.
Quite apart from that particular case, ethnic community leaders continue to deny an ethnic link when it is obvious there is one — a small but insidious group of Lebanese boys are raping Caucasian girls. Acknowledging the ethnic issue without hyperbole or over-reaction allows police to do their job and allows the ethnic community to tackle a problem that Australia is not alone in facing.
Overseas, racially motivated gang rape has been flashing on the radar screen for some time. The approach taken in coun-tries such as France and Denmark to this issue may serve to guide us in Australia through the minefield of knee-jerk reac-tions on the Left and Right.
In France, public recognition of racially motivated gang rape by the police, the judiciary and crime experts has grown exponentially since the trial in Paris earlier this year of 11 young Muslim men accused of raping a 14-year-old girl in the cellar of a high-rise apartment block in northern Paris. This case revealed what has become a disturbing phenomenon most prevalent in France’s poor, migrant suburbs. Gang rape has become known as “tournante” or “take your turn” where a young girl is literally handed from one friend to the next for sexual gratification.
According to Sylvie Lotteau, a magis-trate in the northern suburb of Bobigny, “tournante” was first identified in the late 1980s. A police commander in another northern suburb of Paris explained the phenomenon to Le Monde newspaper: “It is the group effect. They can’t let themselves down in front of their friends, who are urging them to commit the act. Individually, they would not carry out the rape.” So concerned are the French that judicial inquiries are under way in three other French cities and Education Minister Jack Lang has ordered a committee of inquiry.
In Denmark last year the trial of seven immigrant youths for gang-raping a 14-year-old girl highlighted what The Copenhagen Post called the “growing social divide between young immigrant men and native-born Danish girls” who appear sexually available when com-pared to Muslim women.
French and Danish experts explain the sharp rise in the number of gang rapes over the past five years as a symptom of unemployed, alienated second-generation immigrants The perpetrators of gang rape flounder between their parents’ Islamic values and society’s more liberal democratic values, falling back on the most basic pack mentality of violence and self-gratification.
In Denmark, education of these boys has begun. The immigration information service in Aarhus on the island of Jutland provides advice to immigrant fathers on how to teach their sons about the nature of Danish culture and how Denmark’s liberal sexual attitudes cannot be equated with Danish girls “asking for it”. It seems the Danes realise that ignoring racially motivated gang rape won’t make it go away.
----------
Let hard heads, not halfwits, deal with illegals
Tampa’s load may have nothing to do with Taliban
By Frank Devine
THE Government is being hard--headed rather than hard-hearted —and reasonably effective for the time being in trying to halt the flood of illegal immigrants. The just-this-once public emotionalism about letting in the 438 passengers aboard the Tampa was soft-headed.
Extravagant comments on the issue - Tim Costello: “The Prime Minister’s actions have debased Australia” - verged on the half-witted. Nor have I seen so much joy (and exaggeration) about foreign expressions of contempt for Australia since Pauline Hanson was in her early prime. Claims that we have lost all the international goodwill acquired during the Olympics count in the half-witted column.
Who are the 433 people that the Tampa brought into Australian territory after rescuing them in international waters? A number of Fleet Street’s halfwits declared them to be Afghans because the horrific Taliban regime in Afghanistan makes it the most reasonable place to flee. But we do not know this to be so.
Illegal immigrants coming here by boat in recent months have differed from all the refugees of history. Of the 4141 who landed during the 2000-01 financial year, 80 per cent had no identity papers whatever. Most refugees cling to their papers as their most precious pos-sessions, as proof they are somebody, come from somewhere, have a right one day, perhaps, to return home.
When Serbia sought to drive ethnic Albanian Kosovars out of the country, they not only seized and destroyed their papers but attempted further to make them non-people by systematically destroying village records of birth and marriage, and land ownership. A particu-lar oddity about the 3200 newcomers who arrived in Australia without ID during 2000-01 is that most of them had it and presented papers in transit countries.
A boat carrying about 200 people, bound for Indonesia and Australia, was boarded last month by Cambodian offi-cials who demanded the passengers’ ID. Most produced Pakistani papers. (Voice print analysis indicates that a number of illegals claiming to be Afghan are prob-ably Pakistani. There may be consider-ably more Pakistanis among our invaders than official records list, for want of certainty.)
What happens to these ID documents before their owners reach Australia? Some are destroyed, some left with friends to be sent on by mail, some sold to the people smugglers to be used by the next batch of customers. Why do asylum seekers get rid of their papers before arriving in the country where they plan to seek asylum? Obvi-ously, to conceal their country of origin. Some countries offer more reason for refugee flight than others. Concealment of identity is a headache for immigration; not all that is hidden is innocent. A clergyman with long experience of immigrant communities in Australia puts forward the theory that some boat arrivals discard their ID because they don’t need It. They expect to be identified and assisted by relatives, friends or organisations already established here:
Certainly there is activity aplenty at this end of the exodus route. New arrivals are right up to date with the kinds of questions being asked by Australian immigration officers, with welfare ben-efits available and with addresses and telephone numbers for claiming them.
I am aware that some of this sounds carping. Hegel identifies tragedy as the clashing of right with right. Migrants seeking safety – even just a better life – and countries dfending their territory create a tragic Hegelian situation.
Some recent groups arriving here have contained more women and children than men. Immigration authorities believe many are coming in the hope of joining husbands and fathers who have gained a foothold. The idea makes the heart turn over. But the Government’s responsibility to take a stand against Illegal immigrants can’t be sensibly denied.
A tide of coerciveness is rising - hunger strikes and riots in detention camps, sob stories manufactured in them for gullible TV channels. We have had the captain of the Tampa forced by would-be invaders to head back to Aust-ralian territory from a course that would have returned them to Indonesia. We had the captain disobey lawful instruc-tion and push the Tampa into Austral-ian waters with an exaggerated excuse of medical emergency. We have had the Indonesian navy declare its determina-tion to block entry of the Tampa, carrying passengers who set out from an Indonesian port in an Indonesian boat.
Australia accepts 10,000 refugees a year and allows some form of residence to about 5000 illegals. Should we take more? Even many more? It needs to be considered. But would we want to give all the new places, if any, to Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis without ID, who make up most of the present Illegal influx? Instead of, say, to Palestinians? It’s our choice.
I
AM aware that some of this sounds carping. Hegel identifies tragedy as the
clashing of right with right. Migrants
seeking safety — even just a better life —and countries defending their territory create a tragic Hegelian situation.
Some recent groups arriving here have contained more women and children than men. Immigration authorities believe many are coming in the hope of joining husbands and fathers who have gained a foothold. The jdea makes the heart turn
-------
Ignoring the race factor doesn’t help
The ethnic connection must be addressed, says Janet Albrechtson
A former teacher in a French secondary school was so alarmed at the barbaric sexual abuse of young girls by gangs of young migrant men that he directed a movie called ‘La Squale’, which realistically depicted the gang rape of a young girl in a cellar. After its release in December last year, it became one of France’s most popular movies. The director, Fabrice Genestal, said at the time: “My film must serve as an alarm bell.”
In Australia recent newspaper reports have set similar alarm bells ringing. However, migrant community leaders encourage us to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue of racial motivation in a spate of vicious attacks on white women by young Lebanese men in Bankstown and other Sydney suburbs.
This approach was most recently mim-icked in the comments of Justice Megan Latham when she handed out lenient sentences to the perpetrators of a hei-nous gang rape of a young Australian woman in Sydney.
Latham said: “There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences.” Sub-sequent newspaper reports have shown there was plenty of evidence to support a “racial element” but the plea bargaining process meant Latham was denied this information.
What is surprising is why Latham said anything at all. If race was not an issue, wasn’t it enough that she remain silent? Or were her gratuitous comments orchestrated by the plea bargaining pro-cess to douse a highly emotive and increasingly heated debate about ethnic crime?
Her comments fool no one. They sim-ply pander to the Left, who would have us obliterate any ethnic descriptors from our language and fire up the extremists on the Right who blame a religion they know little about.
Quite apart from that particular case, ethnic community leaders continue to deny an ethnic link when it is obvious there is one — a small but insidious group of Lebanese boys are raping Caucasian girls. Acknowledging the ethnic issue without hyperbole or over-reaction allows police to do their job and allows the ethnic community to tackle a problem that Australia is not alone in facing.
Overseas, racially motivated gang rape has been flashing on the radar screen for some time. The approach taken in coun-tries such as France and Denmark to this issue may serve to guide us in Australia through the minefield of knee-jerk reac-tions on the Left and Right.
In France, public recognition of racially motivated gang rape by the police, the judiciary and crime experts has grown exponentially since the trial in Paris earlier this year of 11 young Muslim men accused of raping a 14-year-old girl in the cellar of a high-rise apartment block in northern Paris. This case revealed what has become a disturbing phenomenon most prevalent in France’s poor, migrant suburbs. Gang rape has become known as “tournante” or “take your turn” where a young girl is literally handed from one friend to the next for sexual gratification.
According to Sylvie Lotteau, a magis-trate in the northern suburb of Bobigny, “tournante” was first identified in the late 1980s. A police commander in another northern suburb of Paris explained the phenomenon to Le Monde newspaper: “It is the group effect. They can’t let themselves down in front of their friends, who are urging them to commit the act. Individually, they would not carry out the rape.” So concerned are the French that judicial inquiries are under way in three other French cities and Education Minister Jack Lang has ordered a committee of inquiry.
In Denmark last year the trial of seven immigrant youths for gang-raping a 14-year-old girl highlighted what The Copenhagen Post called the “growing social divide between young immigrant men and native-born Danish girls” who appear sexually available when com-pared to Muslim women.
French and Danish experts explain the sharp rise in the number of gang rapes over the past five years as a symptom of unemployed, alienated second-generation immigrants The perpetrators of gang rape flounder between their parents’ Islamic values and society’s more liberal democratic values, falling back on the most basic pack mentality of violence and self-gratification.
In Denmark, education of these boys has begun. The immigration information service in Aarhus on the island of Jutland provides advice to immigrant fathers on how to teach their sons about the nature of Danish culture and how Denmark’s liberal sexual attitudes cannot be equated with Danish girls “asking for it”. It seems the Danes realise that ignoring racially motivated gang rape won’t make it go away.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the government stand on this issue. In an ideal world, we would have marched the indon people smugglers out onto the deck in full view of the world media, knelt them down and shot them in the back of the head. Now "that" would have sent a message! We also have to change the current legislation preventing the illegals and the do-gooders like that faggot Bob Brown from accessing our legal system. We are paying millions in legal costs to have them fight us in the courts. Nuke-em I say.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley
Thank you for that, I missed the Frank Devine commentary. He can usually be relied on to look at the real issues behind the shouting.
Anybody who saw, I think it was 60 minutes, story on the 2 young girls who were pack raped and the plea bargaining that saw the ethnic youth get a slap on the wrist cannot sensibly ignore the fact that there is indeed a problem. One wonders what the sentence would have been had they been non ethnic whatever that means nowadays.
I still get angry that as a 6th generation Aussie, and, I am proud to say, with one branch going back 10 to 40,000 years depending on which expert you talk to, that I am unable to express my views built on the development and direction of the country pioneered by my ancestors without being called "racist".
Quite simply it's bulls hit.
When I see a person representing an "association for the rights of this ethnic group or that" to the detriment of "that ethnic group or this" usually funded by the Government of our racist nation, which has just spent 30 odd million dollars ensuring that 465 hijackers get a fair assesment of their refugee claims by international agreement, it's the most I can do to stop choking.
Thank you for that, I missed the Frank Devine commentary. He can usually be relied on to look at the real issues behind the shouting.
Anybody who saw, I think it was 60 minutes, story on the 2 young girls who were pack raped and the plea bargaining that saw the ethnic youth get a slap on the wrist cannot sensibly ignore the fact that there is indeed a problem. One wonders what the sentence would have been had they been non ethnic whatever that means nowadays.
I still get angry that as a 6th generation Aussie, and, I am proud to say, with one branch going back 10 to 40,000 years depending on which expert you talk to, that I am unable to express my views built on the development and direction of the country pioneered by my ancestors without being called "racist".
Quite simply it's bulls hit.
When I see a person representing an "association for the rights of this ethnic group or that" to the detriment of "that ethnic group or this" usually funded by the Government of our racist nation, which has just spent 30 odd million dollars ensuring that 465 hijackers get a fair assesment of their refugee claims by international agreement, it's the most I can do to stop choking.