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)

500N 8th Jul 2014 22:34

Bosnich

I think we need to get your rellies onto a boat and bring them ashore.
The one's who were knocked back !

I'll happily drive the boat being a qualified Small boat handler !

Split the $450 ????? :O

rh200 9th Jul 2014 00:05

Boat people?

No white people came and took over this land, in some cases used force to do it. End of story. Was it right or wrong? Depends on your perspective, there is no scientific right or wrong, its a cultural thing.

Appalling! An emotional response which is dependent on the observers stand point. On one hand we want good sound logical policy by some, on others, policy dictated by morality, who's morality, the left or right?

The left are happy for the illegal immigrants to die sometimes in their hundreds trying to get here, as long as it spreads the myths of desperate people. You people have the gaul to say Bush, Blair and Howard have blood on their hands.

The vast majority of these people are leaving safe havens, or are you saying that Indonesia and India are brutalizing them.

As for Sri Lanka, the west can't guarantee its own police or armed forces don't brutalize people, it happens. Sri Lanka has come out of a vicious civil war, it will take decades to come good, welcome to the world.

As I have said before, the UN refugee convention is a complete stuff up that was developed at a time of Utopian thoughts, it should be scrapped and started again. We should pull out of it immediately.

500N 9th Jul 2014 00:08


We should pull out of it immediately.
I don't know why we don't and do our own thing and just work with the Red Cross.

Then we won't have the UN sniping at us and we can shut down
the Canberra offices.

Captain Sand Dune 9th Jul 2014 00:13

My parents came on a boat from a post-WW2 Germany. They paid the fare themselves, and entered Australia in accordance with the regulations in force at the time. I guarantee that post-WW2 Germany was just as fcuked up as present day Sri Lanka, but they didn't see the need to attempt suicide in order to jump the cue. Oh, and they did not claim one red cent of welfare until the day they died.
In any case, is a person who resorts to suicide really the type we want in Australia?
Border protection is one of the major platforms upon which he current government was elected, ergo the government is acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority.

500N 9th Jul 2014 00:17

CSD

Germany was 10 times worse than SL.

The war in SL was way less than half the country and the last couple of years
it was a small corner up north east.

And they have had help from everybody, UN to get back on their feet.


In any case, is a person who resorts to suicide really the type we want in Australia?
No



Border protection is one of the major platforms upon which he current government was elected,
ergo the government is acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
People forget that, although the lack of outcry says a lot in the last two weeks.

CoodaShooda 9th Jul 2014 00:50

I have a quiet suspicion that the government is quite happy for labor/greens/luvvie media/refugee industry to continue the current campaign of faux outrage.

As CSD says, the current policies have the support of the (silent) majority of voters.

The tenor of the current debate is unlikely to swing many away from their private support for strong border protection. It is more likely to cause anger in those same minds and harden hearts against the leftist viewpoint.

7x7 9th Jul 2014 01:04

I think you're right, Cooda. It also keeps the media and the faux outragers off the topic of the budget.

I see also that, as predicted right here some pages ago, the luvvies have trotted out the photogenic prepubescent female to give the country shoppers a human face.

parabellum 9th Jul 2014 01:05

Interesting that iocur12.again accuses others of being devoid of facts but produces not one fact himself! The UN charter is irrelevant in the case of the boat people as they have already passed through at least one and possibly three safe countries to get here, the UN charter requires that refugees seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.


The genuine refugees are to be found in the UNHCR camps in Sudan, Kenya, Somaliland, Pakistan etc. but you won't find any of our libertarian friends or pollies, like SHY, there, and why? no cameras! The boat people are, in nine cases out of ten, not persecuted anyway, they have been earning a good living to be able to afford thousands of dollars to come the leaky boat route, 'losing' their papers on the way. Genuine refugees have no problem coming to a major airport here and presenting their papers, at a fraction of the cost.


Strange that there are still sections of the community that can't see the bleedin' obvious. :(

500N 9th Jul 2014 01:09


The UN charter is irrelevant in the case of the boat people as they have already passed through at least one and possibly three safe countries to get here, the UN charter requires that refugees seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.
Good point.

The lady I quoted the other day even said it was economic reasons.


"Genuine refugees have no problem coming to a major airport here and presenting their papers, at a fraction of the cost."

And get let in from what I see.

oicur12.again 9th Jul 2014 02:01

“This 'white Aussies are boat people line' seems to be trotted out regularly”

My humble apologies, my opening comment did indeed imply that our white ancestors were boat people. I think it is reasonable to consider them as such but my opening comment was more smart arse than debate topic and I apologetically request the comments to be stricken from the record.

“who came here legally…..”

As are asylum seekers.

“….. through the normal migration channels”

Are there any other migration channels worth discussing?

“….feel the same way.”

Interesting, can you share the survey data on this one?

“The left are happy…..”

Awesome argument. How you can take a complex multi dimensional issue such as asylum seeking and boil it down into the simple left versus right easy to consume point of view is impressive.

“The vast majority of these people are leaving safe havens…..”

Afghanistan? Safe? Really?

“We should pull out of it immediately.”

Maybe, that’s a fair opinion. But until we do, Australia must still stand by its legal obligations.

“In any case, is a person who resorts to suicide really the type we want in Australia?”

Nope, we got plenty of those individuals already.

“Border protection is one of the major platforms upon which he current government was elected”

No one is suggesting that the Government should not focus on border security. The debate around asylum seekers is NOT a border protection issue.

“….the current policies have the support of the (silent) majority of voters.”

That’s because the silent majority have no clue about the issue and do not take the time to go beyond the talking points generated by the commercial media.

“….the UN charter requires that refugees seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.”

Not quite, the first safe country they come to where their refugee status can be determined. Most asylum seekers arriving in Australia from intermediate stops have done so after leaving countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia or Vietnam that are not signatories to the UN convention and refuse to assess the asylum seekers status. Australia is then obliged to process these asylum seekers in compliance with UN directions but does not.

I don’t like speed limits so when I drive to work tomorrow, I am going to hit 130 on the freeway. That ok with you guys?

500N 9th Jul 2014 02:08


Australia is then obliged to process these asylum seekers in compliance with UN directions but does not.
That is the problem there, the UN telling us what to do, although Abbott is now just ignoring the UN more of which needs to occur.



oicur
I think we will just have to agree to disagree !

parabellum 9th Jul 2014 02:30


Most asylum seekers arriving in Australia from intermediate stops have done so after leaving countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia or Vietnam

No they don't, the majority come via Pakistan where there are UNHCR camps.

500N 9th Jul 2014 02:35


Although India, Nepal and Sri Lanka are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, they offer asylum to a considerable number of refugees. For its part, UNHCR cooperates with the Governments of these countries, as well as with NGOs and other stakeholders, to protect and assist urban refugees. It also helps to seek comprehensive solutions for internally displaced people (IDPs) and protracted refugee situations.
India grants asylum and provides direct assistance to some 200,000 refugees from neighbouring countries. As the country lacks a national legal framework for asylum, UNHCR conducts registration and refugee status determination (RSD), mostly for arrivals from Afghanistan and Myanmar. More than 24,000 refugees and asylum-seekers of diverse origins are protected and assisted by the Office in India.
And these recent boats came from India.

They or SL can have them back or UNHCR can have then since they are there.


How come people are seeking Asylum in Sri Lanka ?????????

"Sri Lanka has seen a growing number of people arriving seeking asylum, and this trend is likely to continue. While national security is expected to be the Government's primary concern, problems of refoulement or the deportation of people of concern are not anticipated. The return of Sri Lankan refugees will continue, albeit at a slower pace."


http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4876d6.html

CoodaShooda 9th Jul 2014 03:33

Owen

No one mentioned the Denisovans. The research I have seen referred to earlier Homo Sapiens.

Oicur

I am glad you recognize the falsehood of that debating point. I wish others who seek to argue it on the public record would do likewise.

In this vein, perhaps we should explore the question

How you can take a complex multi dimensional issue such as asylum seeking and boil it down into the simple left versus right easy to consume point of view is impressive.
and discuss it in the context of the statements currently being attributed to various refugee advocates, lawyers and politicians of the left.

Those comments would appear to be seeking to convince us that everyone who seeks to enter Australia and secure taxpayer support without having made a contribution themselves is genuinely stateless through the threat of their government/society seeking to cause harm to them.

It is difficult to accept that argument in the face of evidence that an apparently large number of these people have travelled through safe countries, including some which share their less liberal religious convictions, and have sufficient funds to pay the exorbitant amounts apparently demanded by the people smugglers.

Or when a boatload of Sinhalese turn up seeking asylum from Sri Lanka.

Or when the self appointed champions of these boat travelling pawns are so concerned about the pawns welfare that they institute court actions that will see the pawns left bobbing around on the ocean for several weeks, eating out of date navy rations.

Could it be argued that your multi-dimensional issue becomes considerably more simple if it is acknowledged that economic refugees are not asylum seekers and should be excluded from the debate?

Then we can talk about how our governments of both persuasions actually do a considerable amount of resettling genuine refugees.

And also what our government is doing to protect our borders (and our national coffers) from aspirational but not-refugee queue jumpers.

500N 9th Jul 2014 03:37


Could it be argued that your multi-dimensional issue becomes considerably more simple if it is acknowledged that economic refugees are not asylum seekers and should be excluded from the debate?

Then we can talk about how our governments of both persuasions actually do a considerable amount of resettling genuine refugees.
+1 to all of it.

:D:D:D

rh200 9th Jul 2014 04:01


Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia or Vietnam that are not signatories to the UN convention and refuse to assess the asylum seekers status.
Sweat, then lets join the club

SOPS 9th Jul 2014 06:29

Caution advised....we have another attempt of a thread closing troll.:oh:

bosnich71 9th Jul 2014 06:59

SOPS ... I think that you very well be correct. My suspicions were aroused with the use of the phrase, "Industrial military Complex".
F*** me I haven't heard that one since the Viet Nam war days. Classic 60s' Unispeak.

Worrals in the wilds 9th Jul 2014 08:19

What Cooda said. :D
I believe we should be compassionate to asylum seekers and I believe that the government should provide enough resources to process claims quickly and fairly and separate the genuine claimants from economic refugees.

I dislike the recent media/government spin portraying all boat arrivals as criminals and economic refugees, because it is untrue and inflammatory. However, the opposing spin that all boat arrivals are geniune refugees is also untrue, just as inflammatory and just as unhelpful.

500N's link (not sure of the source?) makes a valid and undereported point. India accepts many refugees (political and economic) from neighbouring countries without being a signatory to the Convention. There is a large Tibetan community (among others) in the Indian Himalaya who were made welcome there, despite India already having many impoverished people to support.

While I think we have a duty to protect our borders and our community from criminals (and anyone who thinks the boats are crim/terrorist free is kidding themselves) I think we need to remember to be compassionate and open to new arrivals who seek a better life, free from persecution and with the ability to succeed by their own merit and hard work. Despite the well publicised failures there are many more new Australians from the ME, India and Africa who are working their arses off in low paid jobs, skilling themselves up and making sure their kids get the best education possible. Whether running 24 hour servos, cleaning high rise buildings, labouring on building sites or whatever, these people are continuing in the spirit of the Australian dream, and we should encourage that.

People who arrive here intent on causing trouble or turning Australia into a smaller version of the fundamentalist, violent hell-hole they left (and there are a few of them, though fewer than Alan Jones et al would like to suggest) should be punted off back there.

My father's ancestors arrived here by boat. They didn't know where the boat was going until they boarded it (some went to the US, some to Canada and some to Australia) and they arrived with a small suitcase carrying their possessions. They left because there was nothing at home for them; no food, no peace and no future. We have no photographs of them (only important people got photographed back them) and really nothing more than their names and a few anecdotes to remember them by. However, they came, they worked and they made a new life here. Their descendents remember them and honour their memory. In years to come there will be other Australians (maybe a bit darker than we are and fans of different daggy folk music / wacky food :}), who honour their own anscestors who made the journey here, while enjoying their lives as successful and engaged Australians.
Fair go, for those who play a fair game.

500N 9th Jul 2014 08:35

Worrals


500N's link (not sure of the source?)
It was the UNHCR's own web site, the real deal :O

Actually, I was a bit surprised to find it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05.


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