UN convention misunderstood, and it's not working

* Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
* From: The Australian
* July 10, 2010 12:00AM


THE refugee policy sets up perverse incentives.

ACCORDING to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, there are 16 million refugees in the world today. According to Julian Burnside, Malcolm Fraser and the other faux compassionate advocates of soft policies for illegal immigrants, any of those 16 million who get to Australia's waters should be automatically offered permanent residence in Australia, with immediate access to welfare and all the other benefits Australia offers.

In fact, the category of people to whom the progressives would offer automatic permanent residence in Australia is far greater than this. Illegal immigrant advocates often say that even if someone fails to establish that they are likely to be subject to individual persecution, they cannot possibly be returned to a nation which is generally or sometimes not safe, such as Afghanistan or Sri Lanka.

This means that, to be intellectually honest, the progressive side of Australian politics and intellectual life is advocating that there are tens, probably hundreds, of millions of people who should have an automatic right of citizenship in Australia if they can only get here, or near to here, so that their claims have to be evaluated by our systems and our courts.

In reality, the logic of the progressive position is that the people-smugglers are good agents of history, merely enabling refugees to avail themselves of their genuine, intrinsic rights.

Of course, the Australian people would never stand for this. No Australian mainstream political party would ever advocate it. Even the Greens and others at the progressive end of politics are never honest enough to take their positions to their logical conclusions.

This demonstrates a profound crisis of irrelevance and dishonesty on the progressive side of politics.

It also, however, points to a systemic failing in the international, quasi-legal mechanisms that allegedly govern these matters.

At the heart of the problem is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It is not only not working any more, it is setting up positively perverse incentives and having all manner of unintended and destructive consequences.

It is in desperate need of reform, but any conservative politician who addresses such a question will instantly be denounced as a racist, and almost all progressive politicians lack the stomach to confront the leftward end of their own constituencies on it. Julia Gillard's pretty bizarre balancing act, where she has accepted the absolute need to stop the boats getting to Australia illegally, but has proposed an almost certainly fanciful regional centre in East Timor, is an illustration of the dilemma progressive politicians face in office.

One progressive politician who did recognise the need to reform the UN Refugee Convention was former British prime minister Tony Blair. His foreign secretary Jack Straw ran something of a campaign on the convention.

A decade ago, Straw pointed out: "The (1951) convention was designed for an era when international flows of people were on a much smaller scale than they are today. Intercontinental travel was rare, difficult and expensive. Fifty years on, new technology, global communications and cheap international travel have all contributed to a world where rapid long-distance migration is a realistic option."

Straw further argued: "Too much effort and resources are being expended on dealing with unfounded claims for asylum."

In the end, the Blair-Straw reform push went nowhere. The pressures of inertia and stasis are overwhelming in the international system.

The 1951 convention was set up by the Western powers essentially in the context of the Cold War. It was certainly set up in the moral context of the overwhelming experience of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by the Nazis. One of the many ironies of the convention is that it has had no effect in stopping subsequent quasi-genocidal events, such as in Rwanda and Darfur, and even in the Balkans. It has been totally ineffective in protecting masses of people subject to murderous violence.

But in truth it was never intended to do that anyway. It was meant to protect individuals fleeing from communism. This is one of the many design flaws in the convention for today's circumstances. It assumes that the regime a refugee flees from is permanently and forever oppressive. That is true if you are fleeing from a communist state in the time of Stalin. It is much less true today if, like most refugees and displaced people, you are fleeing from state conflict or state failure.

Similarly, the convention places a stress on establishing an applicant's individual circumstances. Thus a person is a refugee if they have a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".

pt 1.

I don't necessarily disagree.  And if that's the argument the government wishes to have then they can revoke their signature from the refugee convention.  But until that time we have an obligation to uphold it and not circumnavigate .

pt 2.

This means very explicitly that a person is not a refugee simply because there is military conflict in their homeland. But most people today genuinely fleeing danger are fleeing military conflict. Enforcing the convention leads to an often meaningless, and generally wholly subjective, process of determining a person's fear of being persecuted.

Here is where the unintended consequences and perverse incentives come in. The best book on these issues ever written is Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. With a mountain of irrefutable data, Caldwell establishes beyond doubt that the vast Muslim immigration to Europe in recent years is simply a determined illegal immigration, and has almost nothing to do with genuine refugee questions.

He also shows in minute detail how asylum-seekers learn the questions they will be asked, under the provisions of the convention, and what answers will gain them acceptance.He demonstrates how much easier it is to gain such acceptance if you throw away your documents and then tell a story designed to tick the boxes on the 1951 convention criteria. In recent decades, more asylum-seekers have gone to Europe than legally accepted foreign workers. Asylum-seeking thus became a method of immigration.

In saying this, I am not really criticising those people who chose to scam the asylum-seeker process to go and live in Europe. If I were living in North Africa, in any part of North Africa, I would certainly prefer to live in Europe and would pay a lot of money for the opportunity.

But what Caldwell and others demonstrate is that Europe completely lost control of its immigration program as a result of a misplaced sentiment about asylum-seekers, which was operationalised through legalistic adherence to the 1951 convention.

He also demonstrates, incidentally, that uncontrolled Muslim immigration of this kind has been a catastrophe for Europe.

It is also the fact that there is nothing remotely objective about the 1951 convention and how it is interpreted. Different countries are free to apply their own judgment to people's situations. Thus, the world witnesses wildly different acceptance rates from, say, Britain to Norway of asylum-seekers from a given country.

Acceptance rates quickly become known and high acceptance rates attract more asylum-seekers. This is mitigated a little in Europe's case because most failed asylum-seekers do not go home anyway, but simply stay illegally.

Australia is in a very unusual position. Along with Canada and the US, it is one of very few countries with a big and successful immigration program which has enjoyed broad public support and been very successful. The progressive side of Australian politics seems to want to destroy the almost uniquely successful Australian model, which involves Australia running a big program but choosing in an orderly way who gets to come here, and substitute for it instead the manifold failures and conflicts of Europe. This is astoundingly ill-advised.

Beyond the many faults of the 1951 convention, there is also a great mythology about what it actually contains. It contains no obligation on any country to offer permanent resettlement to asylum-seekers. Temporary protection visas are completely in accord with the convention. The truth of the 16 million refugees in the world today is that most will not be resettled but will eventually go home, especially those fleeing conflict which is temporary.

A much smaller number than the 16 million actually require permanent resettlement. The most generous resettlement countries by far are the US, Canada and Australia. Normally, Australia is the first or second most generous resettlement country, offering today 13,750 places for resettlement under its refugee and humanitarian program each year.

But we resettle these refugees after we have chosen them. The Howard government chose 10,000 Burmese from camps in Thailand. And we always give them permanent residency because we are a decent people and we understand that permanent residency offers them the best chance of settling successfully in Australia.

But in the terms of the convention, Australia is only obliged, even with those classed as genuine refugees, not to return them to persecution.

Allowing them to shelter in Australia while their country gets better is completely consistent with the convention. But this is really a mechanism in denying people-smugglers their prized and expensive product - permanent residency in Australia.

A number of 24-carat democracies, such as India and Indonesia, will not sign the 1951 convention.

That is because it is no longer fulfilling its purpose and is positively worsening the management of unregulated population flows.

Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject.

i bet 99% of voters have never heard of it.
i love democracy.

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject.

It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it?

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject.

We've always taken people in, we're a generous country. But with the sheer volume of people claiming asylum, we have to be realistic as to how many we can afford to take in, hence part of the reason for the tough approach by Abbott/Morrison. It's also due to the undeniable fact that the majority if those who've been trying to come here via people smugglers during Labor's reign were not genuine refugees & that they took places that should've been given to those with a real need for our help.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. We've always taken people in, we're a generous country. But with the sheer volume of people claiming asylum, we have to be realistic as to how many we can afford to take in, hence part of the reason for the tough approach by Abbott/Morrison. It's also due to the undeniable fact that the majority if those who've been trying to come here via people smugglers during Labor's reign were not genuine refugees & that they took places that should've been given to those with a real need for our help.

Untrue.  From memory, more than 80% (maybe 90%) of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine.

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it?

Because it is not his or Liberal policy.... ::) ::) ::)
Why don't you suggest it to Clive and the rest of the PUPies...  oh yeah he wants to fly them all in here doesn't he.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

It's also due to the undeniable fact that the majority if those who've been trying to come here via people smugglers during Labor's reign were not genuine refugees & that they took places that should've been given to those with a real need for our help.

Care to share what makes it an "undeniable fact"?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

It's also due to the undeniable fact that the majority if those who've been trying to come here via people smugglers during Labor's reign were not genuine refugees ...

Actually, that's an undeniable lie.

Not that lies are anything new from you.

"More than 90 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be genuine refugees in the March quarter, figures to be released on Monday show.

"The figure continues a long-term trend of high approval rates for people arriving by boat, with 93.5 per cent being found to be refugees in 2010-11 and 91 per cent in 2011-12."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/overwhelming-majority-of-boat-arrivals-deemed-to-be-refugees-20130519-2juty.html

Any more lies, Armpit?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. We've always taken people in, we're a generous country. But with the sheer volume of people claiming asylum, we have to be realistic as to how many we can afford to take in, hence part of the reason for the tough approach by Abbott/Morrison. It's also due to the undeniable fact that the majority if those who've been trying to come here via people smugglers during Labor's reign were not genuine refugees & that they took places that should've been given to those with a real need for our help.

Why not stop immigration from THE MIDDLE EAST, INDIA, ALBANIA, RUSSIA,,NEW ZEALAND   And except refugees instead

They would be better quality people   ;)

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it? Because it is not his or Liberal policy.... ::) ::) ::) Why don't you suggest it to Clive and the rest of the PUPies...  oh yeah he wants to fly them all in here doesn't he.

It was not his policy to breach so many election promises either, so a repudiation of the Convention ought be well within his stride.

(No emoticon was mis-used in the making of this Post.)

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it? Because it is not his or Liberal policy.... ::) ::) ::) Why don't you suggest it to Clive and the rest of the PUPies...  oh yeah he wants to fly them all in here doesn't he. It was not his policy to breach so many election promises either, so a repudiation of the Convention ought be well within his stride. (No emoticon was mis-used in the making of this Post.)

Aren't you straying from the title of this thread?

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it? Because it is not his or Liberal policy.... ::) ::) ::) Why don't you suggest it to Clive and the rest of the PUPies...  oh yeah he wants to fly them all in here doesn't he. It was not his policy to breach so many election promises either, so a repudiation of the Convention ought be well within his stride. (No emoticon was mis-used in the making of this Post.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S0iXdwgPDLI/AAAAAAAAFdw/CYJYbsVycq4/s400/head_up_your_ass2.jpg
You're in the right Party obviously. :D

Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that.
Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-)

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:41pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject. It has always been my very public position that it has forever been an option for Abbott to repudiate, and if he did, he would shut me up in an instant.  Why doesn't he repudiate, Grendel, and rid himself forever of condemnation that he may not be abiding by it? Because it is not his or Liberal policy.... ::) ::) ::) Why don't you suggest it to Clive and the rest of the PUPies...  oh yeah he wants to fly them all in here doesn't he. It was not his policy to breach so many election promises either, so a repudiation of the Convention ought be well within his stride. (No emoticon was mis-used in the making of this Post.) Aren't you straying from the title of this thread?

Not at all.  I agree that if we don't like to be reminded of our agreed international obligations and be required to discharge them, best thing to do is repudiate the Convention, something which can easily be done.

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that. Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-)

I wonder why Abbott does not just withdraw, wot?  Do you reckon it's because Julie presently chairs the Security Council and gets a fantastic car-park in New York?

Or perhaps there are other less superficial reasons to retain Membership of the UN and not repudiate the Convention?

Just asking.

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that. Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-)

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/5/b/5/6/1264247144596627768clapping_hands.jpg.svg.med.png
And it is largely populated by corrupt officials from the 3rd world.

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that. Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-) I wonder why Abbott does not just withdraw, wot?  Do you reckon it's because Julie presently chairs the Security Council and gets a fantastic car-park in New York? Or perhaps there are other less superficial reasons to retain Membership of the UN and not repudiate the Convention? Just asking.

You should try actually reading posts in topics before commenting then.  Because the opening post often answers questions as well as leading to them.

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that. Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-) I wonder why Abbott does not just withdraw, wot?  Do you reckon it's because Julie presently chairs the Security Council and gets a fantastic car-park in New York? Or perhaps there are other less superficial reasons to retain Membership of the UN and not repudiate the Convention? Just asking.

I've no idea why we remain involved, it's counter-intuitive.
I suspect that quitting would be surprisingly popular with Australians if it's failings and the true huge costs involved were laid out honestly for all to see.  8-)

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 4:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:58pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Australia should repudiate the UN entirely, it serves little good, has done nothing for Australia at all, and has cost squillions of dollars doing that. Whatever the good intentions involved in it's foundation, it's now nothing more than a supremely expensive, self-serving and pointless bloated bureaucracy, it's health and disaster relief functions could easily be separated and handled by a small co-coordinating body, nothing else it does has any real worth at all, and it's attempts are always spectacular failures.  8-) I wonder why Abbott does not just withdraw, wot?  Do you reckon it's because Julie presently chairs the Security Council and gets a fantastic car-park in New York? Or perhaps there are other less superficial reasons to retain Membership of the UN and not repudiate the Convention? Just asking. I've no idea why we remain involved, it's counter-intuitive. I suspect that quitting would be surprisingly popular with Australians if it's failings and the true huge costs involved were laid out honestly for all to see.  8-)

Yes, cost is always more important than human life    ::)

(And if it stops those tinted people coming here, all the better).

Quote:

* The UN Refugee Convention/Protocol is out of date Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor

So because the women bashers male lover says it's out of date the conga line of intellectually challenged  believe it's true, ROTFLMAO ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

Quote: * The UN Refugee Convention/Protocol is out of date Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor So because the women bashers male lover says it's out of date the conga line of intellectually challenged  believe it's true, ROTFLMAO ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, it was one of the funnier posts of the day.

Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes

Yes.  Not ignoring the fact that Abort and Morriscum are racist arseholes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes Yes.  Not ignoring the fact that Abort and Morriscum are racist arseholes.

I dont see how that can be true because they both deny being racist just like Rolf Harris denies diddling little girls..so they must be telling the truth  :D

The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant
racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers
and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so.

Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention.

On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of
human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses?

IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged. 

Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia.
Religious much?  ;)

Then re-negotiate it with the UN.... until then the rules apply.

I don't see anyone accepting that people smugglers as such are worthy or some kind of active positive mover in refugee issues - they are an aberration and only flourish in the event of breakdown of the accepted and approved measures already in place.

If Australia and Indonesia would come to some agreement on proper onshore processing in Indonesia or Australia itself - there might be a discussion point - until then, Senator.. there is nothing to discuss..

My party is prepared to offer potential refugees an opportunity to earn citizenship by service n the GAIA projects at normal pay rates and conditions.... that will ensure that they at least have some training and a little cash with which to return home should they be rejected... and they will be sufficiently remote from the majority of Australians during the time of development of those projects to ensure that mothers in their beds will not be terrified of them!

Kat wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.

This should be the ALP's mantra for the next election.

Sadly though, they probably won't have the guts.

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia. Religious much?  ;)

The uselessness and self-serving of the UN in no way puts the conventions in the negative alongside this bloated bureaucracy concept.

Kat wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.

Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses?
Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D

By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse.
Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  This should be the ALP's mantra for the next election. Sadly though, they probably won't have the guts.

;) ;)as if the ALP would criticise Morrison.
They wont even mention boats.
It simply reminds the 80 % of voters in outer suburban electorates (where elections are decided) that Morrison has delivered and labor were incompetant.
They wont discuss boats at all. The only votes in it for them are david marr, sarah hansen young and gweggy. ;) ;).
i bet their internal polling is telling them its a toxic topic for labor.
I'll bet shorten changes the subject every time a journo brings it up.

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:22pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D

I guess you're alternative is ...?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia. Religious much?  ;) The uselessness and self-serving of the UN in no way puts the conventions in the negative alongside this bloated bureaucracy concept.

Actually, it does.

aquascoot wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:19pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  This should be the ALP's mantra for the next election. Sadly though, they probably won't have the guts. ;) ;)as if the ALP would criticise Morrison. They wont even mention boats. It simply reminds the 80 % of voters in outer suburban electorates (where elections are decided) that Morrison has delivered and labor were incompetant. They wont discuss boats at all. The only votes in it for them are david marr, sarah hansen young and gweggy. ;) ;). i bet their internal polling is telling them its a toxic topic for labor. I'll bet shorten changes the subject every time a journo brings it up.

Yes, that's exactly what I implied: "Sadly though, they probably won't have the guts."

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:21pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia. Religious much?  ;) The uselessness and self-serving of the UN in no way puts the conventions in the negative alongside this bloated bureaucracy concept. Actually, it does.

How so?  Because a government in sitting becomes fat and bloated, how does that mean a good law passed previously is not good?  It is the government that is not good.. not the law.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:23pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...?

How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status?
How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools?
Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential?
Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them?
Get the idea?  ;)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:26pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:24pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:21pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia. Religious much?  ;) The uselessness and self-serving of the UN in no way puts the conventions in the negative alongside this bloated bureaucracy concept. Actually, it does. How so?  Because a government in sitting becomes fat and bloated, how does that mean a good law passed previously is not good?  It is the government that is not good.. not the law.

And when that "law" reflects circumstance that no longer apply, and an ideology that time has proven wrong?
As I said, good intentions are no guarantee of good results, the UN is a clear proof of that!
There's an old wisdom about good intentions and a road to somewhere, remember?  :)

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;)

Yes - I agree, but that is not the issue we were discussing.

I am totally in favour of a plebiscite on the issue of potential immigrant processing.... it's just that neither the government nor the opposition are in the same mind...

I do not discuss the GAIA lightly - I see it as a Snowies Scheme for today, and one that will offer unprecedented potential for Australia's future.... all that is required is the will..... and one hell of a lot less of the current government style of self-enrichment and taking care of cronies first.....

That is not what government is supposed to be doing - it is supposed to be planning ahead for the people - not for itself.

Consider the GAIA the Grappler Autobahns.. the Hoover Dams etc... of the 1930's......(LMAO  ;D)..

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;)

When Howard "stopped the boats" presumably a lot of money was saved, right?  If so, tell me, during those days how much was, say, homelessness reduced by?  How many new hospitals were built with federal money, that otherwise would not have been built?  How many indigenous communities had their housing issues fixed?  I'm with you to have a proper and equal society, but I suggest you're targeting the wrong area that you think stops us from getting there.  People can care to safe people from persecution, and also care about fixing our homelessness issue.  And is suggest if you do want to see such change, perhaps less wanting the government to cease foreign aid, and more demandin the government fix the multitudes of tax loopholes and repioritize their agenda towards service delivery and away from privatisation would result is greater outcome.

I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them.

Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people.


We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes

Nope....  but for you that's probably a best guess :D :D :D
It was written in 1951.
And for reasons already mentioned in the opening article.
When will you people learn to read...  or better still, just learn. ::) ::) ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them. Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people. We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not.

But Morrison and Abbott claim to have told us (pre-election) what they propose and that they now have a mandate because they won the September election.

Their problem is that nowhere in their pre-election dogma did they say they will obliterate transparency and conceal from the citizens what they are doing in our name.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Hmmm, I notice there's no discussion re' the uselessness of the UN in general, only abuse and reiteration of the ideological purpose behind that particular convention, also ignoring it's failures and the problems it causes for Australia. Religious much?  ;) The uselessness and self-serving of the UN in no way puts the conventions in the negative alongside this bloated bureaucracy concept.

But the convention and the progs that interpret it, do not deal in the reality of today's world.
Why should a country be obligated to take in Country Shoppers for example?

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes Nope....  but for you that's probably a best guess :D :D :D It was written in 1951. And for reasons already mentioned in the opening article. When will you people learn to read...  or better still, just learn. ::) ::) ::)

Yep...like I said...it doesn't suit Abbott and Morrison's racist dog whistling so it needs to be changed for their benefit.

Kat wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.

Read the opening argument then get back to us Kat.  ::)

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:44pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Of course its out of date coz it makes Abbott and Morrison look like a racist ar$eholes Nope....  but for you that's probably a best guess :D :D :D It was written in 1951. And for reasons already mentioned in the opening article. When will you people learn to read...  or better still, just learn. ::) ::) ::) Yep...like I said...it doesn't suit Abbott and Morrison's racist dog whistling so it needs to be changed for their benefit.

Got nothin' Say nothing...  :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Read the opening argument then get back to us Kat.  ::)

There is nothing in it which addresses what I have posted or what Kat has posted.

(No emoticons were mis-used in the making of this Post.)

progs

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:36pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;) When Howard "stopped the boats" presumably a lot of money was saved, right?  If so, tell me, during those days how much was, say, homelessness reduced by?  How many new hospitals were built with federal money, that otherwise would not have been built?  How many indigenous communities had their housing issues fixed?  I'm with you to have a proper and equal society, but I suggest you're targeting the wrong area that you think stops us from getting there.  People can care to safe people from persecution, and also care about fixing our homelessness issue.  And is suggest if you do want to see such change, perhaps less wanting the government to cease foreign aid, and more demandin the government fix the multitudes of tax loopholes and repioritize their agenda towards service delivery and away from privatisation would result is greater outcome.

You have severe issues with chicken and the egg don't you?
When the boats stop.
When the Asylum Seekers stop coming by boat.
When the detention centres empty.
Then and only then, will the money being wasted on such things become available for better things.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them. Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people. We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not.

(*falls off chair*)... Andrei!  You've gotten rid of Hyde for a while.. welcome back Dr Jekyll!

Let the People decide!  That would solve the whole argument.  well.. nearly.. there will always be some who will be diehards.....

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

You have severe issues with chicken and the egg don't you? When the boats stop. When the Asylum Seekers stop coming by boat. When the detention centres empty. Then and only then, will the money being wasted on such things become available for better things.

In that case it will never end.  NOTHING will deter desperate people from seeking a better life.  I think I prefer the 'work for the citizenship' concept associated with the GAIA....

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:36pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;) When Howard "stopped the boats" presumably a lot of money was saved, right?  If so, tell me, during those days how much was, say, homelessness reduced by?  How many new hospitals were built with federal money, that otherwise would not have been built?  How many indigenous communities had their housing issues fixed?  I'm with you to have a proper and equal society, but I suggest you're targeting the wrong area that you think stops us from getting there.  People can care to safe people from persecution, and also care about fixing our homelessness issue.  And is suggest if you do want to see such change, perhaps less wanting the government to cease foreign aid, and more demandin the government fix the multitudes of tax loopholes and repioritize their agenda towards service delivery and away from privatisation would result is greater outcome.

The fact that Howard ignored infrastructure in favour of pork-barreling has little to do with it, except as yet another example of our poor leadership problems.
Constantly increasing our population artificially, especially with uneducated masses of poor people, defeats any real prospect of the necessary improvements I suggested.
I'm in complete agreement with your points about taxes and prioritisation. Since Foreign aid is mostly spent within Australia, and/or should be, I'd suggest only a small reduction in it, focusing it on our immediate neighbours and the truly needy. Giving Aid to Indonesia and such is a ludicrous idea, their budgets are bigger than ours, and they should solve their own problems. Accepting refugees is not a necessity, it's an ideological gesture only and does our nation little good in real terms, the rest of the world doesn't care one way or the other if truth be told, that's realpolitik.

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

progs

I'm gonna tell Bam on you.... troll... ;D ;D ;D

Oh and Aussie your comprehension skills are lacking...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:39pm: I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them. Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people. We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not. (*falls off chair*)... Andrei!  You've gotten rid of Hyde for a while.. welcome back Dr Jekyll! Let the People decide!  That would solve the whole argument.  well.. nearly.. there will always be some who will be diehards.....

Well Andrei if we pull out of the current Convention, I'm all for onshore processing.  Why do you think Labor and Liberal went for detention centres and offshore processing in the first place?

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:58pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:39pm: I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them. Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people. We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not. (*falls off chair*)... Andrei!  You've gotten rid of Hyde for a while.. welcome back Dr Jekyll! Let the People decide!  That would solve the whole argument.  well.. nearly.. there will always be some who will be diehards..... Well Andrei if we pull out of the current Convention, I'm all for onshore processing.  Why do you think Labor and Liberal went for detention centres and offshore processing in the first place?

Wanna PUP Membership Application?

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:51pm: progs I'm gonna tell Bam on you.... troll... ;D ;D ;D Oh and Aussie your comprehension skills are lacking...

Instead of abusing Aussie maybe you could answer him? This is a good point.

[quote]Their problem is that nowhere in their pre-election dogma did they say they will obliterate transparency and conceal from the citizens what they are doing in our name.[quote]

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

The fact that Howard ignored infrastructure in favour of pork-barreling has little to do with it, except as yet another example of our poor leadership problems. Constantly increasing our population artificially, especially with uneducated masses of poor people, defeats any real prospect of the necessary improvements I suggested. I'm in complete agreement with your points about taxes and prioritisation. Since Foreign aid is mostly spent within Australia, and/or should be, I'd suggest only a small reduction in it, focusing it on our immediate neighbours and the truly needy. Giving Aid to Indonesia and such is a ludicrous idea, their budgets are bigger than ours, and they should solve their own problems. Accepting refugees is not a necessity, it's an ideological gesture only and does our nation little good in real terms, the rest of the world doesn't care one way or the other if truth be told, that's realpolitik.

The point is that the issues we have in Australia are not because we have signed the refugee convention and as a result accept people seeking asylum in this country, but rather it's because of poor governance by both parties.  Howard ignoring issues in favour of pork-barreling has very much to do with it because it's the pork barreling that causes the inaction on real issues.  It's also the pork barreling that results in this suggestion that a large population is unsustainable.  And stopping the processing of refugees is hardly going to stop that.  We need to do a complete overhaul of our major parties, let them know as a society what we actually care about, and only then will we see issues tackled.

Accepting refugees is something we do as a lucky country that demonstrates our true strengths.  Let's face it, wars, genocide, greed for power are all things that happen in reality, and there are things that we aren't exactly going to rid by some magical policy; not with the complex foreign relations that currently exist.  And when people get tangled up in this, it's hardly their fault. And rather than us saying, "Oh it isn't a necessity for us to help you", we should be saying, "We recognise that as a human being you need help, and we are extending our help to you."  That is why the refugee convention exists, to protect people who are in fear of persecution, it's not just because it was put in place under the cold war as a way of helping people out of communism, as Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests. 

As for immigration, yes, in many cases these people come without wealth. Big deal. Our strength as a society is shown by helping these people to their feet, and as generations pass, their future kids, grandkids, etc will not, in the liklihood, be poor.  They will be big contributors to our society, and that's a great thing.

And let me make this clear: When we talk about refugees we are not talking about economic migrants. I do agree that the left in the past has also debated the issue incorrectly, myself included.  We should be looking at asylum seekers as people who are TRULY facing persecution; not hard economic conditions.  We should be looking at offering people protection only in the circumstances of potential persecution, and I do believe the left is wrong in disregarding temporary protection. The key to remember is that we need to offer protection, but perhaps looking at the issue as "resettlement must also be provided permanently" is incorrect.  The key is to help in the interim, and help externally to ensure people can return to their homeland.

Like I suggest, I share your anger at inaction on key Australian issues by governments current and past. But removing ourselves from the refugee convention is HARDLY going to help make this any better.  It'll only guarantee that more money is in the kitty to distribute in the form of diesel rebates for Gina and her fat mates. And that's about it.

With regard to the refugee convention, I do think it's outdated. But not for the reasons that Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests. It's outdated because it doesn't treat the issue equally amongst signatory parties, and all nation members.  I'd suggest that they do a proper review that looks at ensuring the permanent resettlement program is NOT a voluntary program amongst some nations.  I'd also suggest that if nations decide to sign up, then they MUST ACTUALLY be able to provide proper protection; there is no worth in combodia signing up for instance, and not being able to actually offer adequate protection.  ANd I do believe that it's time to put an end to this bullcrap that some countries, like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand can stay away and not sign up, yet still actively and fully participate in the global economy. If we want the issue to properly be looked at, all nations must provide adequate responses, and do their share.

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:36pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;) When Howard "stopped the boats" presumably a lot of money was saved, right?  If so, tell me, during those days how much was, say, homelessness reduced by?  How many new hospitals were built with federal money, that otherwise would not have been built?  How many indigenous communities had their housing issues fixed?  I'm with you to have a proper and equal society, but I suggest you're targeting the wrong area that you think stops us from getting there.  People can care to safe people from persecution, and also care about fixing our homelessness issue.  And is suggest if you do want to see such change, perhaps less wanting the government to cease foreign aid, and more demandin the government fix the multitudes of tax loopholes and repioritize their agenda towards service delivery and away from privatisation would result is greater outcome. You have severe issues with chicken and the egg don't you? When the boats stop. When the Asylum Seekers stop coming by boat. When the detention centres empty. Then and only then, will the money being wasted on such things become available for better things.

where's that picture of yourself with your head up your ass? Time to post it for yourself I think. :D

Grendel/Beowulf/Geoff, is a Xenophobe and up to his old tricks of trying to further his Hansonite agenda...   ::) ::)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:55pm: You have severe issues with chicken and the egg don't you? When the boats stop. When the Asylum Seekers stop coming by boat. When the detention centres empty. Then and only then, will the money being wasted on such things become available for better things. In that case it will never end.  NOTHING will deter desperate people from seeking a better life.  I think I prefer the 'work for the citizenship' concept associated with the GAIA....

there in lies the problem, people wanting a better life does not make you a refugee, no matter how busted ass the country is your leaving.

Aussie wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:58pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:39pm: I am in favour of asking the people of Australia how they want to process asylum seekers and whether Australia should cap the numbers and/or no longer accept them. Too often i see a Government dictate to the people what they will do - when they are supposed to be the servant of the people. We should ask Australians if they want to process asylum seekers offshore and if they want them coming of not. (*falls off chair*)... Andrei!  You've gotten rid of Hyde for a while.. welcome back Dr Jekyll! Let the People decide!  That would solve the whole argument.  well.. nearly.. there will always be some who will be diehards..... Well Andrei if we pull out of the current Convention, I'm all for onshore processing.  Why do you think Labor and Liberal went for detention centres and offshore processing in the first place? Wanna PUP Membership Application?

Nope....  I would fail the membership test...  I'm not a buffoon.
Do try and highlight stuff in context...   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) not just bits of it  :D

skippy. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 6:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:51pm: progs I'm gonna tell Bam on you.... troll... ;D ;D ;D Oh and Aussie your comprehension skills are lacking... Instead of abusing Aussie maybe you could answer him? This is a good point. [quote]Their problem is that nowhere in their pre-election dogma did they say they will obliterate transparency and conceal from the citizens what they are doing in our name.[quote]

What's a good point?  I failed to see any question in the post Skipperoo...  wassup, med problems again?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:33pm:

[quote author=austranger link=1404623417/54#54 date=1404633893] The fact that Howard ignored infrastructure in favour of pork-barreling has little to do with it, except as yet another example of our poor leadership problems. Constantly increasing our population artificially, especially with uneducated masses of poor people, defeats any real prospect of the necessary improvements I suggested. I'm in complete agreement with your points about taxes and prioritisation. Since Foreign aid is mostly spent within Australia, and/or should be, I'd suggest only a small reduction in it, focusing it on our immediate neighbours and the truly needy. Giving Aid to Indonesia and such is a ludicrous idea, their budgets are bigger than ours, and they should solve their own problems. Accepting refugees is not a necessity, it's an ideological gesture only and does our nation little good in real terms, the rest of the world doesn't care one way or the other if truth be told, that's realpolitik.

The point is that the issues we have in Australia are not because we have signed the refugee convention and as a result accept people seeking asylum in this country, but rather it's because of poor governance by both parties.  Howard ignoring issues in favour of pork-barreling has very much to do with it because it's the pork barreling that causes the inaction on real issues.  It's also the pork barreling that results in this suggestion that a large population is unsustainable.  Actually it is not...  it is living on the most arid populated continent on the planet.  And stopping the processing of refugees is hardly going to stop that.  We need to do a complete overhaul of our major parties, let them know as a society what we actually care about, and only then will we see issues tackled.  But you keep voting for major parties or should I say PARTY don't you?

Accepting refugees is something we do as a lucky country that demonstrates our true strengths.  Nope.  Let's face it, wars, genocide, greed for power are all things that happen in reality, and there are things that we aren't exactly going to rid by some magical policy; not with the complex foreign relations that currently exist.  And when people get tangled up in this, it's hardly their fault. And rather than us saying, "Oh it isn't a necessity for us to help you", we should be saying, "We recognise that as a human being you need help, and we are extending our help to you."  But that doesn't mean migrating their culture and population to our country.  That is why the refugee convention exists, no it primarily exists because of what happened to the jews  to protect people who are in fear of persecution, it's not just because it was put in place under the cold war as a way of helping people out of communism, as Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests. 

As for immigration, yes, in many cases these people come without wealth. Big deal. Our strength as a society is shown by helping these people to their feet, and as generations pass, their future kids, grandkids, etc will not, in the liklihood, be poor.  They will be big contributors to our society, and that's a great thing. really, then why after 5 years are most still on welfare...  that is a Prog myth you just spouted there.

And let me make this clear: When we talk about refugees we are not talking about economic migrants. I do agree that the left in the past has also debated the issue incorrectly, myself included.  We should be looking at asylum seekers as people who are TRULY facing persecution; not hard economic conditions.  We should be looking at offering people protection only in the circumstances of potential persecution, and I do believe the left is wrong in disregarding temporary protection. The key to remember is that we need to offer protection, but perhaps looking at the issue as "resettlement must also be provided permanently" is incorrect.  The key is to help in the interim, and help externally to ensure people can return to their homeland.  hallelujah maybe there is hope for you after all... 

Quote:

Like I suggest, I share your anger at inaction on key Australian issues by governments current and past. But removing ourselves from the refugee convention is HARDLY going to help make this any better. Why not we can come up with a new version and Australian version one that addresses the world today. One that won't be scammed and one that won't be abused and people cannot abuse our good will.  It'll only guarantee that more money is in the kitty to distribute in the form of diesel rebates for Gina and her fat mates. And that's about it.  Oh puhlease...  enough of the political bias diatribe. With regard to the refugee convention, I do think it's outdated. ta da...  how many years did it take you to figure that out?  But not for the reasons that Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests. Puhlease enough of the stupid progressive leftard disrespect for once. It's outdated because it doesn't treat the issue equally amongst signatory parties, and all nation members.  I'd suggest that they do a proper review that looks at ensuring the permanent resettlement program is NOT a voluntary program amongst some nations.  Nations have a right to be sovereign, not under a one world government. I'd also suggest that if nations decide to sign up, then they MUST ACTUALLY be able to provide proper protection; there is no worth in combodia signing up for instance, and not being able to actually offer adequate protection.  ANd I do believe that it's time to put an end to this bullcrap that some countries, like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand can stay away and not sign up, yet still actively and fully participate in the global economy. If we want the issue to properly be looked at, all nations must provide adequate responses, and do their share. Ah so you would like to be world dictator then? better if you make amendments or leave the Convention and create your own.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:55pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:36pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:23pm: austranger wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:02pm: The only reason I can see for repudiating it would be in order to pander to the blatant racists who support our current convention-violating mistreatment of asylum-seekers and who wish to avoid international scrutiny and censure for doing so. Under NO circumstances would I support repudiation of this convention. On the contrary, I'd strongly oppose doing so. Why would I support the facilitation of human rights abuses to the very perpetrators of such abuses? IN charge? Abbott and Morrison should BE charged.  Please show me where the UN or it's conventions have ever prevented such abuses? Ruining the social structure of Australia in a frenzy of  idealistic feel-goodery is hardly likely to convince the "baddies" to mend their ways, is it?  ;D By the way, opposing immigration does not mean racism, that's really poor reasoning and unwarranted abuse. Personally, I don't care whether they're black, brown, blue, white, green, or purple-spotted protestants from Pookeepski, wrack off, we're FULL!  ;D I guess you're alternative is ...? How about concentrating on bringing the citizens we already have up to more than third-world status? How about repairing and/or replacing our decaying infrastructure? Building new hospitals and schools? Helping the Indig' to find and reach their full potential? Once all that is achieved we can then open debate about immigration. You know, ASK the whole of Australia if and etc, rather than force someone else's ideology on them? Get the idea?  ;) When Howard "stopped the boats" presumably a lot of money was saved, right?  If so, tell me, during those days how much was, say, homelessness reduced by?  How many new hospitals were built with federal money, that otherwise would not have been built?  How many indigenous communities had their housing issues fixed?  I'm with you to have a proper and equal society, but I suggest you're targeting the wrong area that you think stops us from getting there.  People can care to safe people from persecution, and also care about fixing our homelessness issue.  And is suggest if you do want to see such change, perhaps less wanting the government to cease foreign aid, and more demandin the government fix the multitudes of tax loopholes and repioritize their agenda towards service delivery and away from privatisation would result is greater outcome. You have severe issues with chicken and the egg don't you? When the boats stop. When the Asylum Seekers stop coming by boat. When the detention centres empty. Then and only then, will the money being wasted on such things become available for better things. where's that picture of yourself with your head up your ass? Time to post it for yourself I think. :D

If you've got nothing... then best you say nothing.  I just commented on your post and thanks for being on topic...  pity you keep straying from the path with crap like this one.
My comment above BTW was completely correct.
Shows how pigheaded and biased people like yourself can become. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Grendel/Beowulf/Geoff, is a Xenophobe and up to his old tricks of trying to further his Hansonite agenda...   ::) ::)

Oh pssof bwian you mron....
Stop lying about me you obsessive overbearing twit.
Go troll someone who cares.
http://mu.ranter.net/wp-content/uploads/troll.jpg
Bwian and Family... :D :D :D

I see your usual response, Grendel/Beowulf/Geoff - ad hominem the moment you're challenged.  So, how is Pauline keeping these days?  Your heroine still ripping the Australian taxpayers off?   ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Been my opinion for quite a while that it is time to amend or to abandon it.  We are quite capable of making our own sovereign decisions on the subject.

I really don't know why you seem to think that having treaties means we don't have sovereign power.

If Australia wants to withdraw they should do so and quit pretending to do otherwise.