Both old parties must stop this game of political kicking of refugees.


Both are as bad as each other.


Time for a radical shift ... Refugees are a part of life and how we treat them is a reflection on our humanity.  

Quote:





You REALLY wanna play in the gutter ?



I Remember SIEVX
& the Nine Years Passed
since the Sinking
by Marg Hutton
19 October 2010

I remember the 146 children, 142 women and 65 men who drowned on the high seas seeking refuge in Australia nine years ago today. This tragedy swept away entire families and scattered the few dozen survivors to the four corners of the globe.

I remember Sadiq who struggled all night to stay afloat with his baby daughter Kauthar on his shoulders; his bravery, care and concern for his child in stark contrast to the lies and slurs of the government of the time who falsely claimed asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard to emotionally blackmail their way into Australia. (Sadiq and Kauthar were resettled in Finland.)

I remember Sabah, the last man to be rescued, the 45th survivor, who fought for his life in the water for two whole nights before being found. He lost his wife and two children and was the only one left alive of a group of about 20 who all perished on their planks waiting for rescue. (Sabah now lives in Norway.)

I remember Zaynab, the twelve year old girl who lost both her parents and all her brothers and sisters to the Indian Ocean. She was the first of the SIEVX survivors to be granted entry to Australia. (She lived here with extended family for several years but returned permanently to Iran some time ago.)

I remember Ammar, the twelve year old boy whose mother, brother, three sisters, uncle, aunt and two cousins all lost their lives on SIEVX. (Ammar has been trying to make it all on his own in Canada for years now since his father remarried and returned to Iraq.)

I remember Faris who lost his beloved wife and daughter on SIEVX. He was one of only seven survivors of the sinking who were granted residence in Australia. Even now, years later, he still sometimes wakes in the night screaming from all he has endured.


http://www.sievx.com/

and this happened a LOT less often under howard than under krudd or judas

no tears from me, sport

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:








You've got those figures handy ?




Howard Government - 365 on first investigation
Can you beat that - with Rudd and Gillard ?

yes fkwt, there are record amounts of boats arriving under the leftard govt.

you guess how many have sunk at sea

in the last years of the howard govt there were 6 boat arrivals.
this year, well over 100 so far.

go figure the deaths on the open ocean.

SIEV X
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
SIEV X stands for Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel X. SIEV is the acronym used by the surveillance authority for any boat that has entered Australian waters without prior authorisation and the X is a designation where a tracking number has not or is yet to be assigned, in accordance with Australian Government orders.[1] It is also used by Tony Kevin,[2] to refer to a dilapidated Indonesian fishing boat that was en-route from Sumatra to Christmas Island carrying over 400 asylum seekers. It sank in international waters on 19 October 2001, just south of the Indonesian island of Java, killing 353 people. The tragedy was politically controversial in Australia, as it occurred during an election campaign at a time when asylum seekers and border protection were major issues.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Sinking
3 Senate Select Committee
4 SIEV X Memorial
5 Notes
6 See also
7 Further reading
8 External links


[edit] Background
The SIEV-X incident occurred during the 2001 Australian Federal election campaign. The Tampa affair had focused national media's attention on the issue of asylum seekers. Prime Minister John Howard claimed his policy would prevent people smuggling and stop the boats of asylum seekers from arriving in Australia. The Howard Government had issued instructions to the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to prevent any refugees from reaching Australia via boat. The AFP set about a campaign of disrupting organised people smugglers who operated with overcrowded and dangerous boats. The Royal Australian Navy began intercepting boats that entered Australian waters and transferring all people to Christmas Island

[edit] Sinking
On 18 October 2001, a small, unnamed 19.5m by 4m Indonesian fishing boat departed Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, with 421 passengers onboard. On the 19th, the boat sank during a storm in Indonesian waters about 70 km south of Java. The area was legally international waters but within both Indonesia's EEZ and Indonesia's internationally designated zone of search and rescue responsibility. It also fell inside a temporary Australian border protection surveillance area around the Australian external territory of Christmas Island (which is some 1700 km from mainland Australia). This latter designation was an internal planning and operational tool used by the Australian authorities to deter people smuggling. It had no legal validity and conferred no responsibility in international law. At the time, no Australian aerial reconnaissance flights were mounted because of storm weather, the nearest Australian vessel was hundreds of kilometres away, there was confusion about various boats, and it was thought this particular SIEV had probably returned to Indonesia.[citation needed]

Approximately 146 children, 142 women and 65 men died. On the 20th, 44 survivors were rescued by an Indonesian fishing boat, the Indah Jaya Makmur. A 45th survivor was rescued about twelve hours later by another boat, the Surya Terang.[3].

[edit] Senate Select Committee
On 20 February 2002, the Australian Senate Select Committee inquiring into ‘A Certain Maritime Incident’ met for the first time. Its primary task was to investigate the children overboard affair, however its terms of reference also included investigating “operational procedures observed by the Royal Australian Navy and by relevant Commonwealth agencies to ensure the safety of asylum seekers on vessels entering or attempting to enter Australian waters”.

The committee investigated the SIEV-X sinking, and concluded that "... it [is] extraordinary that a major human disaster could occur in the vicinity of a theatre of intensive Australian operations and remain undetected until three days after the event, without any concern being raised within intelligence and decision making circles." While no government department was found to be to blame for the tragedy, the Committee was surprised that there had been no internal investigations into any systemic problems which could have allowed the Australian government to prevent it from occurring.

[edit] SIEV X Memorial

the facts are those people smugglers responsible for this tragedy were jailed..the Aust govt did do something to stop these evil people from preying on desperate people...however someone saw fit to put a stop to that.and now its a no holds barred environment for people smugglers.

dont tell me any of you so called bleeding hearts are any more concerned about this  than anyone else...it was an accident waiting in the wings.. we are just bloody lucky there havent been a lot more,.

Infarction wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:56am:



typical comment from the left..wish I had a dollar for everytime the left have dragged up Tampa.. but never mind.. whats the old saying about people who live in glass house.?????

my stance on this from the moment I heard about it was IT SHOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED...if this bloody do nothing govt had actually done something... these people smugglers would have been stopped long ago..

instead we have something like 6000 a year now..and this you call compassion...well done, smashed on the rocks..

I think it would be a good idea for the yanks and their cohorts to stop invading other countries for oil, then the people can live in their own lands. Who next? Iran? that's been on the cards for a while now, looks good for some oil. At least they'll have an excuse for going broke....fighting wars for the good of mankind.

While ever we have wars, we will have asylum seekers. We might even become asylum seekers in a few short years if we don't think seriously about letting go of America's apron strings.

Do we want to be smart and concentrate on making a good, safe country for ourselves, or do we want to hang out with the bully-boys and get dragged down with them?

Thanks Labor.
It has often been said that the removal of a working policy to install a failed policy was going to eventually cost lives one day.
And that day is here.
If Howards policy was left to stand, this would not have happened.

If you’re going to have policies which invite people in leaky boats to come here, then sooner or later this type of tragedy is going to happen.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:12am:




isnt anyone else amazed that this hasnt happened over and over again???

27 dead so far and they dont really know how many were on board, could be more than 100..ABC news

What you risk reveals what you value.
Jeanette Winterson

Freedom is worth the risk to these people.....treating them inhumanly as a deterrent is immoral and goes against the grain of Australian society were we promote a fair go for everyone.....Australia has NOTHING to be proud of......we should be ashamed of the way we treat genuine refugees….who are we to decide what someone else’s freedom is worth???

Howard lied when he claimed Siev X sunk in Indonesian waters......An Australian navy ship was the closest vessel to the sinking and the Howard government did nothing to prevent the tragedy despite knowing the vessel was in trouble......the truth is a lot different to the crap peddled by the right......Siev X was allowed to happen!!!

I am greatly saddened by this tragic event involving the loss of lives of many desperate people trying to escape from one hell to find themselves in another.

It is the current Australian Government's poor policy which has led to this.

They have weakened policy, strengthened the people smugglers and pretty, much directly caused this tragedy.

If they had any backbone they would admit this.

A tragic event which saddens many of us - and which could have easily been avoided.

"A tragic event which saddens many of us"

More crocodile tears from the right.

nichy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:53am:

nichy were did the highlited bit come from

Welcome to the Annual Australian Grave Dancing Event
I don't know whose to blame
I don't know what has happened to my country over the past 20 years
All I know is we are not the same people we were.
I AM ASHAMED

Quote:





It WILL continue as long as UN declared refugees continue to live out their lives in sub-human standard refugee prisons in Indonesia and Sri-Lanka in the so called "queue"

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:24am:



You STILL don`t get it. People are dying in unseaworthy boats, AND Australia has the capacity to do next to nothing to alleviate the refugee problem.

Please delete wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:58am:



That was low Ernie.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:15am:





Liberals accused of trying to rewrite history
Broadcast: 21/11/2001

With a third election victory under its belt, the Liberal Party machine has offered an alternative analysis on why it was returned to power. Not surprisingly, after a divisive campaign, the people who ran it are playing down the role of asylum seekers and the 'Tampa' crisis.

---------
Compere: Tony Jones
Reporter: Sarah Clarke



SARAH CLARKE: It was a familiar message spelt out by the PM throughout the campaign.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

SARAH CLARKE: A message repeated.

JOHN HOWARD (OCTOBER 29): What I am asserting is the right of this country to decide who comes here.

SARAH CLARKE: And if you missed that, there was a television advertisement.

JOHN HOWARD (ADVERTISMENT): We will decide who comes to this country.

SARAH CLARKE: But today, in an election post-mortem, Liberal Party mastermind Lynton Crosby, insisted the issue of border protection was not exploited as a campaign tool


In full ...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm

Political point scoring is very ordinary form Buzz.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:30am:





I'd declare it a fair call


It's usually "blow them out of the water" or "leave them for shark bait" by the right

"Political point scoring is very ordinary form Buzz. "

Ah, the Hicks I know and love.

2.) REGIONAL APPROACH TO PROCESSING ASYLUM SEEKERS
On 6 July 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that the Labor Government is pursuing a
regional approach to the processing of asylum seekers with the involvement of the United Nations
High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), as part of a sustainable regional protection framework.
This framework would build on work already underway through the Bali Process. Ms Gillard said
Labor would work towards an approach which “effectively eliminates the onshore processing of
unauthorised arrivals and ensures that anyone seeking asylum is subject to a consistent process of
assessment in the same place”.
If re-elected, Labor would introduce a regional processing centre to reduce the incentive for people
smugglers to send boats to Australia. The assessment processes would be consistent to ensure
that arriving by boat does not give an advantage in the likelihood that they would end up settling in
Australia or other countries of the region. Labor would require that the regional processing centre
be properly run, auspiced and structured, with the processing to take place in a country which has
ratified the Refugee Convention.
In announcing plans for a regional processing centre and for the development of a regional
protection framework, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the Government’s policy goal is to “wreck
the people smuggling trade” by removing the incentive for boats carrying asylum seekers to leave
their port of origin in the first place: to remove both the profitability of the trade and the danger of
the voyage. The Government’s policy seeks to stop the boats before they leave ports on the
journey toward Australia. Ms Gillard does not support the idea of turning asylum boats back to the
country from which they have come, saying that such an approach would put asylum seekers and
Australia’s defence and customs personnel at risk. She says that Labor does not accept the idea of
punishing women and children by locking them up behind razor wire or ignoring people who are
fleeing genocide, torture, and persecution. This, she says, is not inconsistent with “our commitment
to secure borders and fair, orderly migration”.



It doesn't appear to be working Julia

Quote:





As is the aim of the LEFT

But the LEFT do not agree with the RIGHT'S "Final Solution" of life imprisonment on Nauru*


(* Nauru was paid per "unit" per week by the Australian Government

Nauru is NOT a signatory to the UN convention - and found it in their best financial interest to hold them as long as possible, despite having UN declared refugee status)

No they'd rather have them processed on a different foreign country....

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:36am:


This smacks of "Children overboard". Already inhumanity is desperately seeking a sprinkle of justification.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:52am:





Shirk the responsability ?
"Pass the buck" ?

The problem with Nauru, was that NONE were "processed"
Not until the defeat of the Howard Government

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:52am:


I do not like any of the off shore (pretend) solutions but at least going for a country which recognises the appropriate human standards is a small step forward.

Please delete wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 9:09am:


Because Australia is in Asia?
A region not exactly teeming with countries that count human rights high on their priority?

Indonesia, China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, PNG, Malaysia

I could go on and on.

When did Australia invade Iran?

There are Iranians on that boat - what the bugger are they fleeing from? It certainly ain't a war.

And what about Sri Lankans? Australia invaded that island as well did they?

What about the Pakistanis who turn up (pretending to be Afghani)?
Australia's invaded Pakistan too?


LOL talk about take a wide brush....

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:03am:



I'm assuming you are referring to the Howard government as the previous government and not Rudd there Buzz.
Given Howard was in government for 12 years, these stats are not unreasonable.
And not even the high level of gross incompetence from Rudd and then Gillard can change these stats in such a short time.
You probably need to ask yourself what the stats might look like after 12 years of Labors incompetence though.
Then we will see what's what.
What needs to be remembered is when Howards Pacific Solution was in full swing, we had 1 boat arrival in 2 years, 5 detainees on Nauru and closed down detention centres on the mainland.
And yet this country still took in 13,000 refugees who did not engage criminal gangs to smuggle them in.
It is from this high water mark we have come to sink down so low under Labor.
And now Labor has blood on it's hands.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 9:21am:


No, it happened because the Muslim psyco's in Iraq are blowing each other up and has little to do with our company of SAS troops or the training battalion.
Iran, Sri Lanka and all the other countries where these people come from have not seen our troops on their soil.
The Iraqi's are not here because of our soldiers actions, they are here because we have a weak government who's laws sponsor foreign criminal people smugglers.

Anyone who thinks this wasnt going to be a political baseball is kidding themselves.

I refuse to see how people passing through safe, third countries are fleeing persecution.

Why are they picking Australia in the Asia Pacific region and not other countries?

Answer - living standards, social welfare system and Government policy.

Do you believe Laos, Indonesia, Thailand would give these people the social welfare we provide them?

No. Therefore, if they are passing through safe countries and then going on to Australia - how is that not cherry picking where you want to go??

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 9:59am:

Who gives a fcck about your parents dickwad, you and your life interest no one but you. you've always got to turn every subject into a wankfest over yourself.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:02am:



They didn't.
Neither did these people flee from Indonesia in fear for their lives.

See the point?
The situation is exactly the same.

Both are country shopping. Difference is one did it properly, the other just turned up demanding to be let in.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 9:59am:





I guess they had an Australian embassy to apply to, that accepts applications ?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka DO NOT

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:05am:



And who were they running from in Indonesia?
Where is the persecution there?

Why come to Australia.

Answer - social welfare and a want to live somewhere better.

We are stupid enough to accept them.

Verge wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:07am:


EXACTLY!!!!
Could have sworn there was a functioning embassy in Jakarta.

Quote:

That line is a cop out used by both the Libs and Labor party to detract the blame from themselves. If we didn't invade Iraq many of those on board yesterday would not have been there.
This country carries on like its the only country to have people seeking refugee status, stats say that at least a third of people seeking refuge from Africa and the middle east die trying to make it across the strait of Gibraltar, desperate people do desperate things.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:14am:


POSSIBLY THE DUMBEST LINE ON HERE YET.

Under the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Ask the Shias, the Kurds and his own people gassed?

What a fking clown.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:05am:


Wrong Buzz.
All except Afghanistan DO have either an Embassy or a High Commission that accepts applications, except that The Australian Embassy, Iraq has no visa function so applicants are requested to -
See: Australian Embassy, Amman, Jordan

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

I leave the dumbest lines to you jungle jim.

Quote:




That sounds like a nice day trip on the camel ?

I have just re-checked
Since the end of the civil war, the Australian High Commission in Columbo has re-opened itd visa application counter

Of the countris from which our boat arrivals have fled, it is the ONLY Australian embassy, consulate or high commission to do so

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

Vietnamese refos started arriving in 1975.
If you honestly think the war in Vietnam did not force many people out of their homes  and out invasion had little effect you're even more out of touch with reality than you usually sound.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:33am:



http://www.iran.embassy.gov.au/tran/aboutus.html

http://www.migrationexpert.com/australia/visa/australian-embassy/pakistan

http://www.jordan.embassy.gov.au/aman/IraqVisas.html

http://www.srilanka.embassy.gov.au/clmb/Visas_and_Migration.html


[b]I think you need to do a bit more homework buzz.b]

None of the people involved in this latest boat tragedy have come from Indochina - so why the deflection to the Vietnamese ?

Is it a case of "let's change the subject " ?

nichy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:58am:

not on my behalf its not, the Vietnamese are a good example of people accepted here as refugees who passed other countries to get here, but we took them.
This sh it about "oh they passed other countries to get here so they are not refugees " is just sh it.

And there are many reasons why Vietnamese boat people arrived much later than the fall of Saigon.

The "re-education" of bourgeouise running dogs took a few years, therefore, many of them were placed in concentration camps for some time after liberation.

Secondly, relatives and family members would be detained for each person escaping. This is a big reason for people staying where they are - anywhere - and in Vietnam, it took many years for this practice to relax.

Thirdly, it wasn't a quick process to get on a boat and get out of there. Many people had to integrate into the coastal villages for months or years until a boat was available and the time was right.

Fourthly, it cost money. Only people with gold, gems or US dollars could get out. This might need to be collected from many extended family members, or family goods might need to be sold.

All these things took time - boat arrivals from Vietnam spiked around 1980.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:22am:


You are confusing taking in refugees, with accepting ones who arrive here by boat.

How do you think those in camps around the world waiting to be placed feel knowing had they skipped the process and just continued making their way by boat or plane they would be given priority.

It annoys me because they are queue jumpers.  Thousands are waiting for placement yet we seem to give preference to those already here and thats bull.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 11:21am:


Good, you might like to remember that even the Howard government took in 13,000 refugees in the year he put the criminal people smugglers out of business.
1 boat in 2 years, 5 detainees on Nauru and closed down mainland detention centres and yet we still took in 13,000 people.
This just demonstrates this issue is not about refugees, it's about the government not sponsoring foreign criminal smuggling gangs and their associated misery that comes with them.