PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

7x7 2nd Feb 2014 00:50

Loved the smirk on the face of the department head when he said they'd consult their media relations people. He very nearly lost it.

The woman is, to use an old Australian word, a dill.

7x7 2nd Feb 2014 00:53

What really blew me out of the water (perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase given the subject we're dealing with here) is a figure I saw on Andrew Bolt's site. 8.32% of people surveyed believe that the ABC is biased towards the Coalition.

Who are these people?

Ahhhh... 8.32%...

All is explained.

Greens voters.

Airey Belvoir 2nd Feb 2014 01:11

She's a bank counter girl. Always was, always will be. It's just at the moment she's 20 pay grades above what she's worth.

500N 2nd Feb 2014 01:21

She realised what she had said and tried to bluff her way through,
But failed.

The head should have come straight out and hammered her to the desk
With "what part of fictional do you not get ?"

Silly bitch doesn't know when to quit.

Captain Sand Dune 2nd Feb 2014 03:10

The look on the face of the woman to S H-Y's right is priceless!:}

CoodaShooda 2nd Feb 2014 03:19

In fairness to the Senator of Little Brain, there is a channel 7 program called Coastwatch - but it's made in conjunction with the NSW Fisheries Department.

Whatever, her level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.

Andu 2nd Feb 2014 03:48

I've just spent a highly entertaining ten minutes on Sarah Hanson-Young's Facebook page.


CoodaShooda 2nd Feb 2014 04:06

Morrison taking Carr apart was similarly entertaining but you're not likely to see it replayed on an ABC station near you.

500N 2nd Feb 2014 08:02

Interesting piece in the Age.

Morrison's conviction in the face of anger

One charge you never hear levelled against Scott Morrison is that he is weak.
Conviction is a rare quality in politics, and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, whether you agree with his position or not, has it in spades.
This is infuriating to a legion of well educated critics who regard the minister's righteous purpose in repelling hapless asylum seekers as immoral, and his reflex to "operational" secrecy, as simply undemocratic.
Yet Morrison's triple calculation is that he has the moral argument, the bulk of voters, and eventually, the verdict of history on his side.
Right now, he is probably stronger in all three categories than many want to admit.
In both heart and head, the Abbott Government believes its uncompromising border protection policies are popular - that they are "controversial" only within a narrow band of the Australian community. A band which, by-the-way, doesn't vote conservative.
But Morrison's conviction appears to run deeper than mere electoral politics.
His ability to absorb the slings and arrows of outrageous indignation day in and day out suggest a man on something approaching a sacred mission.
Appearing voluntarily at a hostile Senate inquiry on Friday, Morrison was formidable as he compared the previous Labor government's outcomes them with his own.
From 2007, total arrivals topped 50,000, the monthly rate reached 4000, and the immigration department was overwhelmed by its collapsing detention network. Worst of all he said, there were 1,100 deaths at sea.
Under the Coalition, this has dramatically changed - albeit perhaps exaggerated by the monsoon season. Since December 19 there have been no IMAs (illegal maritime arrivals) as they are now designated. Of course, we now know an IMA is defined as somebody transferred to an immigration facility, so boats turned around don't count, which is handy.
Nevertheless, that constitutes the first arrival-free month in 58 months.
It is not hard to see how that will be viewed by most voters - especially if it continues.
No attempted voyages also means no deaths at sea. Hence the moral basis - Morrison believes this is an open and shut case. The end will justify the means.
Another consideration is foreign policy.
There is no doubt that the Indonesian relationship is being sacrificed in order to break the people-smuggling trade.
The furore over recent incursions into Indonesian territory shows just how fractious the relationship now is. And it appears there are other aspects of Operation Sovereign Borders that we, and Jakarta, don't know about.
On Friday, the Government actually cited the potential for damage to international relationships as a key justification for not providing to a Senate inquiry, background documents associated with OSB.
Yet if the boats stop coming and the drownings end, few will quibble with the claim that the damage was worth it.

Andu 2nd Feb 2014 08:21

What makes that article really interesting is that it was published in 'The Age'.

500N 2nd Feb 2014 08:37


I was surprised when I was reading it, a paper I read daily even though
not normally of that persuasion.

It is a damn good summary and covers the point made by a few earlier on here,
that those people Abbott is pissing off are not Lib voters anyway and never will be.

In addition, the highlight of the people saved from drowning !!!

7x7 2nd Feb 2014 21:18

Townsville Bulletin Texts to the Editor this morning contains this gem ---

"Even the rain on ABC weather maps is slanted towards the left!"

Ken Borough 2nd Feb 2014 21:28

Here's a very thoughtful piece written by John Menadue on his blog

John Menadue. Sharks and asylum seekers

Over the weekend we have seen thousands of people crowding onto our beaches on both sides of the country to protest against the culling of sharks in Western Australia. I happen to think that the protesters are right, that people who swim in dangerous seas know the risks but are prepared to take them. Compared with the carnage on our roads, the number who die from shark attacks is quite minor.

But the protests made me ask why we do not see the same protests supporting asylum seekers, fellow human beings fleeing terror of a different sort.

Why are we so exhausted in defending the rights of asylum seekers? Maybe it is because the problem is so large, it’s long-term and seems to be intractable. What can we do to make a difference?

I think our willingness to “pass by on the other side” is because for over a long period deliberate and successful attempts have been made to anaesthatise our consciences to the plight of asylum seekers and refugees. We have become numb to the tragedy that we have allowed to happen in our name.

I suggest that there are a string of events and actions that have made us less sensitive.

John Howard was the first Prime Minister in Australia since the war to show us the great political benefit in appealing to our fear and our worst instincts. Tony Abbott has followed in the same path.

We were told at the time of the ‘children overboard’ event that asylum seekers were so inhuman and degraded that they would even throw their children overboard.
Tony Abbott continues to call boat people ‘illegals’, akin to criminals, when they are not. As a colleague of Tony Abbott’s at a Jesuit college put it ‘They are not illegals, they are our brothers and sisters’.

Scott Morrison told the Coalition Caucus that most people believe that asylum seekers are Muslims and that that should be exploited.

He later told us that asylum seekers bring disease and wads of money.
The new Member for Lindsay at the last election told us that asylum seekers are blocking the M4 in Sydney.

Eric Abetz in Opposition told us that asylum seekers in the community who offended, even in a trivial way, should be treated like paedophiles.
The demonization of asylum seekers and refugees continues almost daily. The media is largely silent. Its major interest is the politics of boat arrivals, not the plight of the persecuted. The leadership of our churches, synagogues and mosques is scarcely heard. The Vietnamese community that was given a haven in Australia more than 30 years ago is silent. The Labor Party is largely silent as are many members of the Coalition who I know are privately very concerned about what is happening.

What is it that sharks have that seems to make their plight more important than that of asylum seekers and refugees? Our consciences have become numb. The demonization of asylum seekers is proving to be a political winner.

It seems to be worth making the effort to save sharks but not human beings also fleeing terror.

owen meaney 2nd Feb 2014 22:04

Ken, I don't think we are dealing with the same type of refugee that we welcomed to Australia after the war in Indo China.
What is happening now, in my opinion, is the global movement of economic refugees.
If nothing is done to mitigate the huge influx of people I envisage coming from the poorer nations, we are condemning our descendants to living in a third world country.

That being said, the answer is beyond me, and I am happy to leave it to our leaders to negotiate the best outcome.

I too despair for my fellow humans, BUT, that doesn't mean I want to live with them and have my country thrown into the same abyss they came from.

Do you have a solution that does not include a population of 120 mil in Australia?

Ken Borough 2nd Feb 2014 22:15


The problem as I see it is not having the ability to quickly differentiate the difference between the genuine political refugee and the economic refugee. I think if the authorities can achieve this, well quickly see resolution of the 'boat people crisis'. Heaven knows,we have already squillions of economic refugees here already - just walk around certain streets in the better parts of suburban Sydney to see what I mean. Thee people came here legally.

I don't see a way around the dilemma but I think it mightily unfair and unjust to demonize a certain group of people in genuine need as their plight is 'muddied' by a group of people not in such a dire circumstance. We will always have crooks in our midst, some of whom masquerade as the epitome of good. Quo vadis?

500N 2nd Feb 2014 22:21

"not having the ability to quickly differentiate the difference between the genuine political refugee and the economic refugee."

+ 1

Not often I agree with you Ken but that one I do.

The other issue is, so many left wing do gooders want to accept everyone so even if Mr Bang is classed as not being a refugee, then the fight starts instead of people accepting it. Or if they are gong to be returned, the lawyers get involved and get a stay so a hearing can be held. It just goes on and on.

Abbott has partially stopped that by stopping the boats, it really does solve
a hell of a lot of problems if people never get here int he first place.

owen meaney 2nd Feb 2014 22:26

Thanks for the honesty, you are correct of course, we already have a developing underclass in Australia.

We DO need the "left" as 500N so eloquently put it, keep the spotlight on the issue of the basic humanity of the people desperate to reach a new life.

Romam vado iterum crucifigi

parabellum 2nd Feb 2014 22:27

Thoughtful maybe Ken, accurate? Nope.

We have become numb to the tragedy that we have allowed to happen in our name.

Coming via leaky boats, having spent large sums to fly via Malaysia and Indonesia when they could have gone direct, for a fraction of the cost, to any major Australian airport is a matter of their own doing and is definitely not 'in our name'

Tony Abbott continues to call boat people ‘illegals’, akin to criminals, when they are not.

Endeavouring to enter Australia via illegal means, (without visas) and deliberately destroying their travel documents and other forms of ID may not be criminal but it is certainly illegal.

parabellum 2nd Feb 2014 22:31

"not having the ability to quickly differentiate the difference between the genuine political refugee and the economic refugee."

Disagree, come by leaky boat having deliberately destroyed all your ID = economic refugee, a fraud.

Ken Borough 2nd Feb 2014 22:45

Especially for those of The Right! On 8th July 2013, The Australian published an article that listed ten myths about asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Here is myth number 4:

Myth 4: They're illegal, queue jumping undesirables

REALITY: Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a 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. Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Australia has a proud history of boat people and other asylum seekers becoming good citizens.
There are many other articles detailing why asylum seekers are not acting illegally when they arrive in Australia by boat without travel documents. What does it take for otherwise intelligent people to be convinced of this undeniable fact, unless of course you're TA, SM or the most forgettable Member for Lindsey?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.