He hasn't got the bat phone plugged in yet. Give him a go, he's recovering from a hissy-fit.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:13am:

Or, ironically, were he to get up, his government may ship would-be boat people into Australia before they board their own leaky ones... Or pay them to stay in Indonesia... Wouldn't the Indonesians love that  ...

Nah, but more likely, he'll order the navy to shoot at them... Like the Singaporeans do.

This is why the election results are good. We have some people with hearts in the senate to block retarded policies that the libs would try to pass. They won't stand a chance and Tony will have to at least pretend he's a little bit humane.

Pansi, do you have any idea what a minute fraction of people who are in need of asylum these boat people represent?  These are only the rich ones, the very fortunate ones, there are teaming millions of people in our region whose lives are on a knife edge.  You are "supporting" a very tiny portion of the capitalist ones, you aren`t really addressing the problem.

To support people smuggling is a very narrow minded, emotive view.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:21am:


Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"?
You`re doing well.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:27am:


No second prizes dump skip.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:46am:


Dit it take you all that time to work it out?

ethelsidebottom wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:25pm:


No, the foreign criminal gangs are too stupid to take a hint.
When Tony's policies put the crew in the clink for a mandatory 10 year sentence is when we will see the boat arrivals halt.
Just like it did once before, remember.

When did the boats stop before? Number of “boat people” varies with wars/famines/floods etc

Darwin wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:36am:


Howards three boats in a year is still the record for Labor to beat.

And the number of 'boat people' also vary as we found out when Labor removes a working policy to install a failed one.

Three boats a year is better than the three boats a week under Labor which we had not long ago.

Quote:


That would be true of both leaders right about now.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:54am:

Wow, you too fell for the pea and thimble trick of Howard’s Pacific nonSolution? Do you know the number of refugees reaching Australia during those years never declined because of the PS? Just kept varying with world calamities.

Any Lib here, there is a bridge in Sydney, been in my family for years, up for sale cheap.

And why worry about the boats anyhow? because the Australian population are sheep and Howard knew how to play the xenophobia in the mob of sheep that is the electorate.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:



You fly in on a visa and have a passport - we know who you are.
You come on a boat without papers - we don't.

Spot the difference, if you can (careful, it's tricky).

They can’t? So how come 90-95% make it to Australia while nearly all asylum seekers who arrive by plane are sent back?

I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum?

  Re: Another Boat
Reply #18 - Today at 11:49am     culldav wrote on Today at 11:34am:
It would seem the only politician concerned about the boat people and the Australian people is Rob Oakeshott, and his proposal to have a processing centre in Australia is a good one. $350 million stays in Australia and Australian jobs are created, instead of all that money and jobs going to another country.



Well, we've done that one too remember.
Which is why it was stopped in the first place.
Endless court appeals initiated by the taxpayer funded lawyers, on behalf of the disaffected asylum seeker unhappy with the judges decision coupled with the sewing of lips together might make great media fodder, but it proves nothing and saves no money at all. 
Back to top 


Surely Australia could construct a system whereby we don't go down that road again.  Create legislation that stops the endless court appeals. Surely Australians have the intellect to create a fair system on its own land.

How can a country like Australia be seen as an internation player, when we don't have the mental intellect to handle our own problems, and have to pass simplistic problems off to other countries to handle.

They are not all unskilled bludgers. We have had doctors and other professionals in the past, who if they hadn't been detained by the Howard government for so long would have made a good contribution to this country.

One thing you have to credit them for is the courage and initiative it would take to escape from where they came and then battle it out on a leaky boat only to be met by further hostility.

I have said many times that I am against asylum seekers being housed in motels, hotels, caravan parks and other places after they are released from detention and awaiting Public Housing. Meanwhile other homeless Australians have to live garages, parks, alley-ways, and under bridges.

The thing is; this situation is not the fault of the refugees, its the fault of our Governments by not being competent enough is knowing how to spend the Australian's tax dollars.

If pollies gave up part of their lurks 'n' perks and "junkets" then Australia would have enough money to build permanent accommodation for everyone.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:


Neither do we have any say in who boards these boats, so your point cancels itself out.

The 1951 Refugee Agreement is merely a voluntary signed article.

It has no legal standing, Australian law overrides it and it is not policed by any body.

France routinely ignores it and is a member of the Security Council!

There is nothing legally binding Australia to accept these losers.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

What a cop out, you have no idea.

To sympathize with those who are less fortunate is honorable and decent. A man able to commiserate only with himself would surely be neither admirable nor attractive. But every virtue can become deformed by excess, insincerity, or loose thinking into an opposing vice. Sympathy, when excessive, moves toward sentimental condescension and eventually disdain; when insincere, it becomes unctuously hypocritical; and when associated with loose thinking, it is a bad guide to policy and frequently has disastrous results. It is possible, of course, to combine all three errors.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html

Quote:
-skippy

I think that many would not care what the rest of the world thinks.
I think many have their own idealised concept of an Australia that is somehow independent of, and apart from, the rest of the world, and do not care how bigoted and racist other nations think we are.

The people that bang on about boats as being a crisis, usually fall into that category.

However, the rest of us that do care about our reputation abroad, and do feel that we need to act as part of a caring global community, are repulsed at the victimisation of these small numbers of desperate refugees that take that most dangerous journey in the hope of finding freedom and a better life.

The Labor party needs to take a long hard look at itself for giving legs to the vilification of boat people, in their desperate attempt to secure votes, it was a shameful thing for them to do.

Stopping people from wishing to come here is easy, Howard knew that, just make it a bad option.
How?
By making sure that those who try suffer.
Suffer long, and suffer hard.
He knew it, he did it, it worked, but when he was doing it the Labor party condemned it, but when they had to choose between risking votes, and doing the right thing, they chose to do the wrong thing, and mimic some of Howard's actions, and the vast swing to the Greens from Labor was in no small part due to this bad decision.

I don't care if Abbott would have been worse, there are some principles that even politicians should not be prepared to sacrifice for political advantage.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:



Do you see France as xenophobic and redneck?

France routinely does not comply with this very UN Article and French law overrides who it allows in.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:



You know nothing of their national issues then.

France, like Britain, has a considerable Muslim problem with which it is grappling.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:


I disagree that ALL who choose a lack of compassion and concern for fellow human beings are xenophobic rednecks, I think a lot are just poorly informed, or misinformed, and struggle to define the line between respecting and caring for your own country and culture, and becoming overly zealous in promoting that to a point where their actions become counter productive, and they actually hurt us by creating a view that we are all intolerant extremists.

Quote:


Who is judging? The Japanese? People in Singapore? Mexicans?

Pot, kettle, black. Who cares?

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:



Grow a pair, or the intolerant extremists you grovel to will rule your children wirth an iron fist.

The really amusing thing is I actually think we should let the boat people in (until it is safe for them to return home; citizenship status will be completely precluded) That treaty is a crock though.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:


With a nick like yours that doesn't surprise me, I expect you left your former fascist led dictatorship but forgot to leave your fascist beliefs with it.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:


Australia has an open border on immigration with NZ.

I personally would like to see that closed too.

I have met several Asians who got into Australia via the back door of living in NZ first.

Australia should decide solely who it lets in.
It should not give a toss what the UN or anyone else thinks.

The UN has done nothing on Chinese human rights abuse, Zimbabwe's destructive abuse of white farmers and electoral rigging, Iran's electoral rigging, Rwandan massacres.

The UN? Bag of shyte.

Australia needs strong border control and that means without a visa - NOBODY comes in.
If you arrive without a visa, you're going straight back no question.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:


You`ll never work it out tip skip, not until they starve and abuse you, and kick your door down you low infidel.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:



And which intolerant extremist might that be aussie?
You?

n

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:



In Britain we had a scenario where the head of the Finsbury Park Mosque, who declared Muslims should rise up and support Iraq and hated Britain - when Jordan asked for his extradition on terror charges he asked Britain to not send him because he faced execution.

This is the sort of rubbish we are used to putting up with now.

Parts of Britain dont even look like our country anymore, we may as well be in Baghdad.

It's a crying shame what we have allowed to happen.

It is not too late for Australia to lock the gate and keep this lot out.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:33pm:



A nasty evil anti-black nation that had a higher living standard and education level for black people than any of it's 'free' neighbours....

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:36pm:



South Africa is getting exactly what was always predicted to happen.

I mean we had the entire rest of the continent to see what happens when black majority rule occurs.

Debt, disease, internal war, corruption and poverty.

Black Africa in a nutshell.

They had no idea just how good they had it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:


Settle down andrei, who else is going to bring back the trolleys from the carpark into Coles & Woolies.
Get real, someone has to be in the trolley posse.
You don't really expect 'us' to do it do you?
Australia has a great need for these uneducated untrained unskilled non English speaking spear sharpeners & goat herders to help us get over this nations chronic skills shortage that we have.

Jobs Australians won't do, I guess.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:44pm:


The reason South Africa refused to change under international pressure because they predicted what is happening there would happen. Black majority rule was resisted because it was expected that it would be disasterous for the entire population; blacks and whites alike, but especially whites. It has been and things are getting worse.

It amazes me that the pious democratic world, only ten or so years *after* the dismantling of their own segregation programs, had the effrontery to look down on South Africa as they did. It reminds me of that old slogan that was used in Colonial America that the further away people lived from the Sioux and the Apache the more people sympathized with them. South Africa's unique geographical and demographic situation instilled in the whites there their hard-edged, no-nonsense approach to running their country. They were probably right, though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:


I'll go along with that.

Yeah, I've heard that the ANC is also seriously out of touch there with even the blacks. Didn't they make gay marriage legal in South Africa? Like that's going to go down well with blacks. In some districts a lot of black people are now voting in whites, I think. Could be wrong about though.

Quote:
Imp

That is right Imp, and the fact that they were is largely what caused the problem in the first place.

You seem to be arguing that if black sth africans had been treated fairly and compassionately, they would have simply reverted to type as murderous black demons.
I know you believe that people have genetic dispositions towards violent behaviour along cultural lines, but I do not agree with that contention.

Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world.
With the advancement of civilisation, we saw western europe develop into a more orderly society, but that did not happen over night, it happened over centuries.
Even with our advanced secular democracies, the west still has the capability of creating bloody mayhem in the world from time to time, so to claim the moral highground in relation to violent behaviour, for the white, western races, along genetic grounds, may be just a bit presumptuous.

Quote:


What would you define here as to be treated "compassionately"? Many of things done to Black africans during Apartheid were wrong, but others were simply precautionary measures. Pass laws for instance -- not necessarily very pleasant for individuals, but on a group level (from the perspective of whites, and even some blacks), probably fairly sensible. Keeping Africans disenfranchised was a good move as well; their enfranchisement has only led to the current situation.

Quote:


Mozzaok, it does not necessarily matter whether individuals have genetic predispostions towards violence or not. It is not not a necessary condition for white South Africans to have taken the precautionary measures that they did. Treating them differently  only would have made sense **if** the causes of their violent tendencies were directly as a result of the treatment metered out by Apartheid in the first place. I think most of the evidence is inconsistent or does not fit into this explanation so the precautionary measures taken by the white South Africans, while unpleasant, and at many times went far too far, were probably the most sensible course of action. I am not saying that because Group X is more violent/etc on average than Group Y because of genetic reasons (though I do think this) therefore many of the legislative measures taken by Apartheid were justified; I'm saying that the disparties in these negative behaviors between groups, which certainly and undeniably do exist, could probably not be reasonably ascribed to Apartheid itself, and therefore the White South Africans were likely judicious in their actions.

Quote:


Even in an historical context, I don't think that most of the world has ever really been as violent as Africa.  Though civilization and the environment do in fact, and you are quite right to point out so, have passifying effects; whether or not they can ever *truly* remove disparities between certain groups, on certain behaviors, remains to be seen. The only African nations that exist that are nothing like the rest are tiny Caribbean nations that have unique demographic, economic and historical conditions that have given rise to them in the first place.

The "cradle of civilization" was Mesopotamia and the Indus valley, not Africa. Let's not try to confuse the geographic descriptor for African with its other descriptor. The Egyptians were not "Africans" in the sense that we are using here (as much as Afrocentric liars would like them to have been), though they did exist in Africa.

Quote:


That's very interesting; I didn't know that about the Zulu. I would have thought, being that the Zulu are a formidable warrior people, they would have been *more* volatile than the rest of the Africans in the Cape, not less. I'm infinitely impressed by the bravery (perhaps temerity) and indomitable spirit of the Zulu impis; despite vast and obvious technological and economic disadvantages, they almost managed to bring the world's foremost hyperpower to its knees.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

I stand corrected you,Imp & Moz are right I got my species & civilizations crossed

Another "open our borders" maniac 

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:



Yet they do.
People hate free loaders, people hate people who come here and take from the system having paid in zero.

If it weren't an issue it wouldn't have got the airtime and both major parties scrambling to battle the issue.

It was an issue because people do have it as a priority.

We simply don't want third world garbage coming here and taking funds which we can allocate to real Australian people who have paid into the country.

That is fact. People care.
Rightfully so.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:




You mean the west should re-colonise the third world and resume civilising them? I actually agree with that.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:



skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:




Oh the irony

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:


I think you will find the priority is about stopping foreign criminal gangs from smuggling people.
Even John Howards government took in 13,000 migrants and asylum seekers in the year he put the smugglers out of business.
Whether you like it or not, whether it's smuggling drugs, sex slaves or economic refugees, it doesn't matter.
All three are illegal in most nations in the world.