Gillard ends discriminatory asylum policy Part II

[Malifice]

How does onshore arrival deter people from taking a boat? Should asylum be granted to those based on a needs rather then a financial basis?

Because they will just be sitting in refugee camps in Australia instead of Nairu or Afghanistan.

Why does it matter where we detain them?

My recollections may be a bit hazy because I wasn't alive at the time, but in the wars where Australia set up internment camps, in the war torn European countries, didn't the locals either fight or flee and then when it was safe they returned home? .

Might want to check what happened after we lost the Vietnam war.

 

[Max zero]

Because they will just be sitting in refugee camps in Australia instead of Nairu or Afghanistan.

Why does it matter where we detain them?

Because those being held in camps in Australia have a far higher chance of getting in. You may well say you will legislate so there is no advantage but I doubt many refugees will noticed that sort of nuanced approach ie it will be no disincentive.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Because they will just be sitting in refugee camps in Australia instead of Nairu or Afghanistan.

Why does it matter where we detain them?



Might want to check what happened after we lost the Vietnam war.

Which part, where the defeated South fled the totally communist regime? At least Vietnam and us are in much closer proximity to each other. I remember as a kid the fall of Saigon and the nightly news reports with vision of all the boats off northern Australia.

I also remember a story more than a decade after the fall of Saigon about all the Vietnamese refugees that had been rotting away in detention in Hong Kong.

 

[Malifice]

Which part?

The part where we had a boat people crisis (all those Asians coming in via boats).

The Libs solved the problem by simply flying a hundred thousand refugees into Oz over the next few years.

Because those being held in camps in Australia have a far higher chance of getting in.

Not with a 'no advantage' rule they wouldnt.

You may well say you will legislate so there is no advantage but I doubt many refugees will noticed that sort of nuanced approach ie it will be no disincentive.

How about we try it for a bit and see how we go?

Remember, my main beef with the current situation is the Commonwealths attempts to avoid the Rule of Law, avoid providing Natural Justice, and seek to grant itself unfettered extra judicial authority in the exersize of a power to detain people indefinately, at gun point and without charge.

I dont care who you are, or what side of politics you favor, but that is a power the Commonwealth should not have.

Such a power to exersize mandatory and indefinate detention (if the Commonwealth should even have the power) needs (at an absolute minimum) to be supervised by the judiciary, be administered according to the Rule of Law, and be enacted in a non arbitrary and isolated manner outside of basic rules of Natural Justice and procedural fairness.

 

[Max zero]

The part where we had a boat people crisis (all those Asians coming in via boats).

The Libs solved the problem by simply flying a hundred thousand refugees into Oz over the next few years.



Not with a 'no advantage' rule they wouldnt.



How about we try it for a bit and see how we go?

Remember, my main beef with the current situation is the Commonwealths attempts to avoid the Rule of Law, avoid providing Natural Justice, and seek to grant itself unfettered extra judicial authority in the exersize of a power to detain people indefinately, at gun point and without charge.

I dont care who you are, or what side of politics you favor, but that is a power the Commonwealth should not have.

Such a power to exersize mandatory and indefinate detention (if the Commonwealth should even have the power) needs (at an absolute minimum) to be supervised by the judiciary, be administered according to the Rule of Law, and be enacted in a non arbitrary and isolated manner outside of basic rules of Natural Justice and procedural fairness.

Just experiment right? Like Gillard did with closing down with Nauru? How about less experiments (that get people killed if they don't work) and more going with solutions that have actually been proven to work?

We tried the touchy feely approach and it cost us a few billion and killed a couple hundred. Why should we give it another chance?

 

[Malifice]

At least Vietnam and us are in much closer proximity to each other.

Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (both Asian countries) are not that much further away.

In fact Sri Lanka is about the exact same distance away from Oz as Vietnam.

I also remember a story more than a decade after the fall of Saigon about all the Vietnamese refugees that had been rotting away in detention in Hong Kong.

Now you might understand why so many of them were desperate to get on boats and get out of there.

 

[Malifice]

Just experiment right? Like Gillard did with closing down with Nauru? How about less experiments (that get people killed if they don't work) and more going with solutions that have actually been proven to work?

We tried the touchy feely approach and it cost us a few billion and killed a couple hundred. Why should we give it another chance?

Your Faux concern for refugees both amuses and sickens me.

And you didnt address my post at all.

Are you comfortable with the Commonwealth granting itself the power to detain people indefinately, at gun point and without charge (offshore), while specifically avoiding the Rule of Law, without having to provide any Natural Justice or procedural fairness, and while specifically excluding any judicial scrutiny of the Executive or their officers in the exersize of such a power?

 

[Max zero]

Your Faux concern for refugees both amuses and sickens me.

And you didnt address my post at all.

Are you comfortable with the Commonwealth granting itself the power to detain people indefinately, at gun point and without charge (offshore), while specifically avoiding the Rule of Law, without having to provide any Natural Justice or procedural fairness, and while specifically excluding any judicial scrutiny of the Executive or their officers in the exersize of such a power?

No it's you who are not addressing anything.

No I am not comfortable with the government doing that. Are you comfortable with a few hundred people dying on the way to Australia trying to improve their chances of asylum? Can you guarantee that onshore processing won't be considered an encouragement for refugees to make boat journeys to Australia? Because it is as of right now.

You live in your world of theory with zero understanding of how your fantasy world scenarios actually play in real life. Were you one of the people who cheered when Nauru was closed? Were you still cheering when a few hundred died trying to make the journey over? Or did you just pretend that the closing of Nauru had nothing to do with that?

The fact is at the end of Howard's reign the detention centres were empty and no one was dying. The complete opposite of now. Do you take any responsibility?

 

[Malifice]

No I am not comfortable with the government doing that.

Then stop ****ing advocating for it to happen.

Are you comfortable with a few hundred people dying on the way to Australia trying to improve their chances of asylum?

No.

How many have thousands more have died in camps waiting to get picked up? Or died because they were too scared to leave the persecution in their country for fear of what Australians would do to them (i.e. persecute them good and proper and lock them up for good)?

Can you guarantee that onshore processing won't be considered an encouragement for refugees to make boat journeys to Australia? Because it is as of right now.

Implement a firm no advantage rule.

Once thats in place, the only reason refugees would risk the journey is because the journey is less risk to their lives then remaining in a camp, or country or place where they are being tortured or persecuted.

You live in your world of theory with zero understanding of how your fantasy world scenarios actually play in real life.

Bet you a Ive had more first hand experience with Refugees than you have (on both sides of the fence, as a Soldier enforcing Howards rubbish and as a Refugee advocate in a later life).

I was on Christmans island at the time of the MV Tampa, were you?

If the above qualifies as 'theory' then please explain your qualifications for me so we can compare notes.

Were you one of the people who cheered when Nauru was closed?

Yes.

Were you still cheering when a few hundred died trying to make the journey over?

No.

Or did you just pretend that the closing of Nauru had nothing to do with that?

What had more to do with it, closing Nairu or our decision to bomb and invade the country that those people were fleeing from in the first place?

The fact is at the end of Howard's reign the detention centres were empty and no one was dying.

Oh they were dying.

They were just dying elsewhere.

 

[Max zero]

Then stop ******* advocating for it to happen.



No.

How many have thousands more have died in camps waiting to get picked up? Or died because they were too scared to leave the persecution in their country for fear of what Australians would do to them (i.e. persecute them good and proper and lock them up for good)?



Implement a firm no advantage rule.

Once thats in place, the only reason refugees would risk the journey is because the journey is less risk to their lives then remaining in a camp, or country or place where they are being tortured or persecuted.



Bet you a Ive had more first hand experience with Refugees than you have (on both sides of the fence, as a Soldier enforcing Howards rubbish and as a Refugee advocate in a later life).

I was on Christmans island at the time of the MV Tampa, were you?

If the above qualifies as 'theory' then please explain your qualifications for me so we can compare notes.



Yes.



No.



What had more to do with it, closing Nairu or our decision to bomb and invade the country that those people were fleeing from in the first place?



Oh they were dying.

They were just dying elsewhere.

We can't save everyone. There are what 200 million refugees. It sounds like you are trying to excuse the boat deaths with "they would of died anyway." Pretty poor form. Or are you advocating Australia take over the running (and the costs) of all the refugee camps in the world?

Firm no advantage rule hey? So what, you are going to give out flyers at refugee camps explain how on shore processing isn't encouragement?

What had more to do with it, closing Nairu or our decision to bomb and invade the country that those people were fleeing from in the first place?

Oh so are you willing to admit that closing Nauru played a part? That's is a start.

 

[Malifice]

It sounds like you are trying to excuse the boat deaths with "they would of died anyway." Pretty poor form.

Why, its true.

Its no worse form than your fake compassion for 'the welfare of refugees' covering up a desire to have them all arbitrarily locked up on some malaria infested shithole absent any judicial review, or left to rot in refugee camps or warzones around the world.

I bet you a million bucks your opinion would be dramatically different if these refugees were white, anglo, english speaking christians from the UK, NZ or the USA.

Just a hunch of course, I could be wrong.

There are what 200 million refugees

So why U so mad about a few thousand sailing here on boats per annum, or us increasing our intake annually to 20,000?

Its a piss in the ocean both in terms of refugees intake per capita, and as a proportion of GDP.

Firm no advantage rule hey? So what, you are going to give out flyers at refugee camps explain how on shore processing isn't encouragement?

Did Howard have to give out fliers explaining how Nairu isn't encouragement?

Youre advocating using a system of dumping people (including children) in indefinite detention in Nairu to prevent refugees from attempting to flee to Australia.

Youre aware not even China, Pakistan or Iran go that far right?

More sickening is your claim that you only advocate such 'harsh measures' for the saftey and welfare of those very refugees you want to **** off back home to a warzone.

You couldnt give a toss about the welfare of the current crop of refugees, at least be honest about it.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I bet you a million bucks your opinion would be dramatically different if these refugees were white, anglo, english speaking christians from the UK, NZ or the USA.

Just a hunch of course, I could be wrong.

Mine would certainly be different.

 

[bombermick]

There probably is some faux concern from some on the right for political advantage. But there's also nothing compassionate about continuing 'soft' policies that have been proven to lead people to their deaths.

Being stuck in limbo in Malaysia is not a life, but having a policy that encourages people to get on leaky boats borders on the criminal. Both the Malifices and Daytrippers of this world are equally wrong IMO, it's not a simple issue.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

There probably is some faux concern from some on the right for political advantage. But there's also nothing compassionate about continuing 'soft' policies that have been proven to lead people to their deaths.

Being stuck in limbo in Malaysia is not a life, but having a policy that encourages people to get on leaky boats borders on the criminal. Both the Malifices and Daytrippers of this world are equally wrong IMO, it's not a simple issue.

I have real problems with this kinda statement. No policy on asylum seekers leads people to their deaths. It is a choice undertaken by asylum seekers. Clearly they believe the risks are worth taking

 

[PottSie2]

I have real problems with this kinda statement. No policy on asylum seekers leads people to their deaths. It is a choice undertaken by asylum seekers. Clearly they believe the risks are worth taking

Whether you have problems with or not is irrelevant. Fact is, Govt. Policy changes have made those 'risks' more tempting to take.

 

[bombermick]

I have real problems with this kinda statement. No policy on asylum seekers leads people to their deaths. It is a choice undertaken by asylum seekers. Clearly they believe the risks are worth taking

If you introduce a policy that makes it more attractive you have blood on your hands.

It's what annoys me about the Deveneys of this world. She rightly bemoaned Reith's attitudes on "Go Back", yet conveniently ignores the policies she and her ilk wanted led to hundreds of deaths.

 

[Malifice]

Mine would certainly be different.

While I loathe your ethnocentrism/ racism, I respect your honesty.

 

[Max zero]

Why, its true.

Its no worse form than your fake compassion for 'the welfare of refugees' covering up a desire to have them all arbitrarily locked up on some malaria infested shithole absent any judicial review, or left to rot in refugee camps or warzones around the world.

I bet you a million bucks your opinion would be dramatically different if these refugees were white, anglo, english speaking christians from the UK, NZ or the USA.

Just a hunch of course, I could be wrong.



So why U so mad about a few thousand sailing here on boats per annum, or us increasing our intake annually to 20,000?

Its a piss in the ocean both in terms of refugees intake per capita, and as a proportion of GDP.



Did Howard have to give out fliers explaining how Nairu isn't encouragement?

Youre advocating using a system of dumping people (including children) in indefinite detention in Nairu to prevent refugees from attempting to flee to Australia.

Youre aware not even China, Pakistan or Iran go that far right?

More sickening is your claim that you only advocate such 'harsh measures' for the saftey and welfare of those very refugees you want to **** off back home to a warzone.

You couldnt give a toss about the welfare of the current crop of refugees, at least be honest about it.

Wow the racist card AGAIN! Does that ever get old? As for whether my view would change it would most certainly would not. I discriminate against everyone equally.

So yes you are wrong.

Who said I was mad about the intake going up to 20k? Please quote me where I said that.

You may consider it faux concern (which is your standard MO) but I actually do give a shit. Why should someone who can pay their way (boat arrivals) get an advantage over those who can't (camp applicants)?

Indefinite detention? Please tell me how many were in detention when Howard left office?

The FACT (remember that word?) is there are more in indefinite detention now then under Howard and there will be even more under your on shore processing scheme. YOUR good intentions are putting them there (those that don't die anyway).

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

While I loathe your ethnocentrism/ racism, I respect your honesty.

They would fly here, they'd have id and they'd fit in much more seemlessly.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

If you introduce a policy that makes it more attractive you have blood on your hands.

So let me get this right, in order to make seeking asylum in Australia less attractive, resulting in less deaths at sea, we detain people indefinitely causing a decrease in their mental health and even suicide attempts.

So whose hands are this man's blood on?

A victim of mandatory detention and ASIO security assessments



It's what annoys me about the Deveneys of this world. She rightly bemoaned Reith's attitudes on "Go Back", yet conveniently ignores the policies she and her ilk wanted led to hundreds of deaths.[/quote]

When the Catherine Deveneys of this world hold a gun to the heads of asylum seekers and forces them on boats, then you may have a point.
Let's not consider the push factors.

The boats ain't gonna stop

The boats continue to arrive despite Labor adopting a new hardline policy of sending asylum-seekers to be processed on Nauru and Papua New Guinea's Manus Island.
The policy switch followed the report earlier this month by a panel of experts led by former defence chief Angus Houston, which had been "deeply concerned" about the loss of life at sea.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...distress-reports/story-fn9hm1gu-1226460912885

 

[bombermick]

So what do you propose we do Clubmed?

The government by going back to the Nauru solution has admitted there was a causal link between their policies and deaths at sea.

No one - other than the occasional redneck - wants to see people suffering in detention - but what's the alternative?

It's going to take time for these policies to take an affect ...

 

[Malifice]

Why should someone who can pay their way (boat arrivals) get an advantage over those who can't (camp applicants)?

Havent I been in support of a 'no advantage' rule?

My main gripe is people supporting the State circumventing the Rule of Law, Separation of the Powers, removal of procedural fairness, access to judical supervision of the executive and so on.

The FACT (remember that word?) is there are more in indefinite detention now then under Howard and there will be even more under your on shore processing scheme. YOUR good intentions are putting them there (those that don't die anyway).

Provide me numbers of Refugees that have died or been tortured sitting in refugee camps and warzones around the world in the past year.

We can compare them with those that have died attepting the voyage.

You dont think they understand the risks? They accept the risk of drowning because the risks of death remaining where they are are greater.

 

[bombermick]

At least be honest about the issue, Malifice.

Most of our "boat-people" are coming via Malaysia or Indonesia. Most of them aren't at risk of death.

A shitty life yes, but not death.

I'd take the journey if I was them, but you're being disingenuous.

 

[Malifice]

Most of our "boat-people" are coming via Malaysia or Indonesia. Most of them aren't at risk of death.

You may want to have a read of the situation in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq before continuing on with that one.

 

[bombermick]

You may want to have a read of the situation in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq before continuing on with that one.

Are they not passing through SE Asia first?