Gillard ends discriminatory asylum policy Part II

[bombermick]

It's not about making Gillard look good it's all about (for Labor) trying to take this issue somewhat off the burner.

But i doubt that Tone will let that happen as with his latest sermon yesterday of piracy on the high seas & how he wants the string them up on the yardarm solution put into to play.

Even that's not going to work. A few Labor posters have said the voters won't remember Gillard's complete capitulation and humiliation on this issue on voting day.

Judging by what the comments of some Labor MPs in this government, they also hold the people in such contempt. No wonder they're going to face the baseball bats.

 

[Pessimistic]

In much the same way as howard used to backflip to neutralise issues in the year leading up to an election

I'd quote some examples, but he was so good at it I cant even remember them !!!

 

[GuruJane]

Whatever Howard done while in government Tone has visions of copying him right down to the letter, I too heard heard Abbott on sky yesterday mentioning the SAS clause in how he would deal with these dastardly vicious pirates who mentioned self harm when told they were heading to Singapore.

I still rate the sight of how Howard ordered our finest armed forces in the SAS to round up the men, woman & children with guns leveled at them on the deck of the Tampa to cower in fear as one of this countries major disgraces.

But i'm sure that the rednecks of this country would have got a kick out of it.

Yet you were all in favor of Chris Bowen have the AFP loading asylum seekers at gunpoint onto a plane and flying them back to Malaysia.

Deeply, deeply pathetic, Noddy.

 

[tazzietiger]

Looks like Sunday night Channel 7 is going to have a story on turning back the boats.

 

[noddy]

Yet you were all in favor of Chris Bowen have the AFP loading asylum seekers at gunpoint onto a plane and flying them back to Malaysia.

Deeply, deeply pathetic, Noddy.

That's funny i must have missed that.

Tell me Jane was you one of those that got their rocks off when our boys put those despicable asylum seekers in their sites?

 

[noddy]

That's funny i must have missed that.

 

[GuruJane]

That's funny i must have missed that.

Tell me Jane was you one of those that got their rocks off when our boys put those despicable asylum seekers in their sites?

Its this kind of hysterical hyperbole that got labor into this diabolical trouble in the first place. You have no business to be carrying on about Howard when Gillard was (and probably will) use gunpont to break this cynical trade holding govt to ransom.

Pathetic to say you didn't know. Bowen even had the media there to cover the AFP practising in full riot gear.

 

[bombermick]

At least most of the Libs don't pretend to be bleeding hearts. Labor MPs bitch about the policy, but vote for it anyway. Hypocrites.

 

[Malifice]

Its this kind of hysterical hyperbole that got labor into this diabolical trouble in the first place. You have no business to be carrying on about Howard when Gillard was (and probably will) use gunpont to break this cynical trade holding govt to ransom.

Pathetic to say you didn't know. Bowen even had the media there to cover the AFP practising in full riot gear.

Is it OK to despise them both?

 

[Moo]

Is it OK to despise them both?

I'll see your two and raise you one.

 

[Malifice]

I'll see your two and raise you one.

Gillard lost me here:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s proposed amendments to the Migration Act and Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act—aimed at stripping asylum seekers of their basic legal rights—are set to be defeated in parliament later today. The impasse will further exacerbate the crisis engulfing the Labor government, following last month’s High Court decision that struck down the proposed deportation of hundreds of refugees to Malaysia.

The government’s amendments, aimed at circumventing the High Court judgement, blatantly violate fundamental precepts of international law governing the treatment of asylum seekers. Gillard wants to give the immigration minister unchecked power to deport refugees, including unaccompanied children, to any country in the world without consideration of the “international obligations or domestic law of that country”—based solely on an assessment of the so-called “national interest.” The amendments explicitly state that “the rules of natural justice do not apply to the exercise of the [immigration minister’s] power”, and authorise the use of military in the forced deportations.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/aust-s21.shtml

So we have Legislation:

• That is a blatant violation of International Law? Check.
• That purports to grant unfettered power to the Executive in violation of the Separation of Powers (specifically to circumvent supervison by the Judiciary, in a Westminster governement where the Executive are also the Legislature)? Check.
• Specifically empowers the Commonwealth to avoid the Rule of Law? Check.
• Expressly allows such mandatory unfettered power to be exersized without recourse to Natural Justice, or a review by the Judiciary? Check.
• To enable the deportation (at gunpoint) of children? Check.

**** me, not even Howard went that far.

In fact I'm off Labor till the Right factions are gone for good.

The only reason I'd vote for em is to keep Abbott out, but honestly, Im struggling to see any material difference between the two prospects.

And they wonder why the Green vote grows.

 

[GuruJane]

Government of the adults by the 13 year olds for the 13 year olds only works up to a point. Then nasty medicine has to be taken as prescribed by Dr Houston, Dr Aristotle and Dr L'Estrange

 

[noddy]

Its this kind of hysterical hyperbole that got labor into this diabolical trouble in the first place. You have no business to be carrying on about Howard when Gillard was (and probably will) use gunpont to break this cynical trade holding govt to ransom.

Pathetic to say you didn't know. Bowen even had the media there to cover the AFP practising in full riot gear.

I shall carry on about Howard & the Tampa as much as i like & just to make this plain to you I was against the Malaysian solution from the beginning just about as much as i was against your policy of turning back the boats & no i did not see Bowen posing with the AFP in full riot gear so i'll take your word for it but i did see what happened on the Tampa thanks to the media department that Howard conveniently had on stand by as for hysterical hyperbole please have you forgotten the Abbott war cry of "stop the armada from the north" or just have a read of the letters to the editor section of this mornings News outlets as i'm pretty sure they would have the same amount of hysterical hyperbole as the SA Advertiser regarding the Morrison/Abbott outcry of piracy on the high seas. .

Just going back to the Tampa again do you believe Howard would have done what he done if that boat was under the flag of a major power?

 

[noddy]

Gillard lost me here:



http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/aust-s21.shtml

So we have Legislation:

• That is a blatant violation of International Law? Check.
• That purports to grant unfettered power to the Executive in violation of the Separation of Powers (specifically to circumvent supervison by the Judiciary, in a Westminster governement where the Executive are also the Legislature)? Check.
• Specifically empowers the Commonwealth to avoid the Rule of Law? Check.
• Expressly allows such mandatory unfettered power to be exersized without recourse to Natural Justice, or a review by the Judiciary? Check.
• To enable the deportation (at gunpoint) of children? Check.

**** me, not even Howard went that far.

In fact I'm off Labor till the Right factions are gone for good.

The only reason I'd vote for em is to keep Abbott out, but honestly, Im struggling to see any material difference between the two prospects.

And they wonder why the Green vote grows.

Don't be surprised if the informal vote numbers rise up above the Greens.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

[quote="noddy, post: 25273105, member: 3680"Just going back to the Tampa again do you believe Howard would have done what he done if that boat was under the flag of a major power?[/quote]

I was told never to answer a question with a question but here goes anyway.

If they had been rescued by either one of a US, Chinese or Russian ship, do you think the crews would have copped the crap from the economic refugees that the crew of the Tampa did? Would they have put up with piracy which is essentially what happened in the end?

The Chinese would have thrown them back in the drink. The Russians would have followed suit and the Americans probably would have shot them. (yes I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you get my drift)

After the initial episode, when the economic refugees were enroute to Nauru onboard HMAS Manoora, do you think the crews from any of the countries I've mentioned above would have put up with having shit and urine thrown at them? I know the Americans and the Chinese certainly wouldn't have, not sure what the Russians would have done.

 

[bombermick]

At least Malifice supports a party that has principles on this issue - even if most of us think them unworkable and foolish. The Libs have little, but are at least consistent. Gillard only did something when she was forced to.

 

[R00StaR]

Mal loves refugee seaman. Clearly a preference for them over the poor refugees rotting in UN camps. Most Aussies want a party that stop the boats! Gillard had no choice in the end but to listen to the people instead of the left wing neo-stalinists extremists.

The other thing 20k is way too many. Holy shit thats a Ballarat we have to build every 5 years, with 80%+ relying on welfare for income. Meanwhile manufacturing jobs keep getting destroyed, the sort of jobs that feed the service industry jobs. We have an aging baby boomer population that just had their nest eggs destroyed via GFC who will become more reliant on the pension and a heavier load on the health care system. We can barely look after our own, yet a 100k town with 80% defendants every 5 years is a great thing! The numbers just dont stack up, meh but who cares, its just makes us feel warm and fuzzy hey? By the time we've turned Australia into a third world country we'll be well gone.

 

[noddy]

[quote="noddy, post: 25273105, member: 3680"Just going back to the Tampa again do you believe Howard would have done what he done if that boat was under the flag of a major power?

I was told never to answer a question with a question but here goes anyway.

If they had been rescued by either one of a US, Chinese or Russian ship, do you think the crews would have copped the crap from the economic refugees that the crew of the Tampa did? Would they have put up with piracy which is essentially what happened in the end?

The Chinese would have thrown them back in the drink. The Russians would have followed suit and the Americans probably would have shot them. (yes I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you get my drift)

After the initial episode, when the economic refugees were enroute to Nauru onboard HMAS Manoora, do you think the crews from any of the countries I've mentioned above would have put up with having shit and urine thrown at them? I know the Americans and the Chinese certainly wouldn't have, not sure what the Russians would have done.[/quote]

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

 

[GuruJane]

I shall carry on about Howard & the Tampa as much as i like & just to make this plain to you I was against the Malaysian solution from the beginning just about as much as i was against your policy of turning back the boats & no i did not see Bowen posing with the AFP in full riot gear so i'll take your word for it but i did see what happened on the Tampa thanks to the media department that Howard conveniently had on stand by as for hysterical hyperbole please have you forgotten the Abbott war cry of "stop the armada from the north" or just have a read of the letters to the editor section of this mornings News outlets as i'm pretty sure they would have the same amount of hysterical hyperbole as the SA Advertiser regarding the Morrison/Abbott outcry of piracy on the high seas. .

Just going back to the Tampa again do you believe Howard would have done what he done if that boat was under the flag of a major power?

Under major power , the passengers would have been delivered straight back to Indonesia or taken to Singapore - alternatively major power would have been pleased to have SAS come on board. You don't seem to realise that the AS went up onto the bridge and threatened the capatain, crew and you don't seem to realise major powers take attempts to hijack at sea seriously, and do not negotiate or give in.
Are you saying you haven't defended Malaysian policy here?

 

[Max zero]

At least Malifice supports a party that has principles on this issue - even if most of us think them unworkable and foolish. The Libs have little, but are at least consistent. Gillard only did something when she was forced to.

Although it's not hard to stick to your principles when you don't have to provide any framework for how they will function in practice.

 

[Max zero]

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

Didn't answer the question. The question was would any other world power done anything differently to Australia in the same situation?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I was told never to answer a question with a question but here goes anyway.

If they had been rescued by either one of a US, Chinese or Russian ship, do you think the crews would have copped the crap from the economic refugees that the crew of the Tampa did? Would they have put up with piracy which is essentially what happened in the end?

The Chinese would have thrown them back in the drink. The Russians would have followed suit and the Americans probably would have shot them. (yes I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you get my drift)

After the initial episode, when the economic refugees were enroute to Nauru onboard HMAS Manoora, do you think the crews from any of the countries I've mentioned above would have put up with having shit and urine thrown at them? I know the Americans and the Chinese certainly wouldn't have, not sure what the Russians would have done.

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair[/quote]

I'm well aware of what happened, I was in the Navy at the time and had both my neighbours on either side of me were on the Manoora taking them to Nauru. I know what went on once they were taken off the Tampa.

Do you or anyone else remember what happened when the Chinese Navy was in Sydney a decade or so ago? Protesters approached they Chinese ship in Sydney Harbour, the Chinese had erected tarps across the access to one of the lower decks, they pulled the protesters out of their boats, behind the tarps and beat the shit out of them before depositing them back from whence they came. I also remember the US coastguard with high pressure hoses, hosing Haitian refugees off their boats in the Carribean.

I answered your question as to what would have happened if the economic refugees had've been picked up by a superpower and all you offered me in return was a wiki link about what happened. Do you disagree with my take on what would have likely happened?

 

[Spiritsof82]

I was told never to answer a question with a question but here goes anyway.

If they had been rescued by either one of a US, Chinese or Russian ship, do you think the crews would have copped the crap from the economic refugees that the crew of the Tampa did? Would they have put up with piracy which is essentially what happened in the end?

The Chinese would have thrown them back in the drink. The Russians would have followed suit and the Americans probably would have shot them. (yes I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you get my drift)

After the initial episode, when the economic refugees were enroute to Nauru onboard HMAS Manoora, do you think the crews from any of the countries I've mentioned above would have put up with having shit and urine thrown at them? I know the Americans and the Chinese certainly wouldn't have, not sure what the Russians would have done.

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair[/quote]

The tree hugging political correct response, have a talk with the crew of Manoora at the time, they'll tell you of the urine and crap that was thrown at them by the so call peacefull illegals. They'll also tell you about the damage caused to the ship by these people smashing everthing they could get close to onboard as well as mothers hanging their kids over the side as the ship pulled into Naru as a protest of being there. And don't miss the filling of bottles with urine by the illegals who then showed them to the press claming that it was what they were given to drink during the trip. From what I've heard of the actions by these people, do I feel sorry, no, should they have the comfort of a bed on a island, no, should they be sent straight back to where they started the trip, yep, and I'm happy to chip in some money to make sure they go.

 

[GuruJane]

Don't think you and Herne are going to get too far with the what-really-happened argument. The 13 year olds aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance - the more shit and urine thrown at the Navy they more they like it; the happier it makes them feel
Go get those teachers and Mum and Dad

 

[Max zero]

The UN has had a bit of a cry:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/un-slams-governments-asylum-seeker-plan-20120818-24fpi.html

Yes the current situation is much better then when the detention centres were empty and no one was dying on boats to Australia.