getfunky, maxm, and probably mostly everyone else, you seem to be overlooking the fact that the leaky boat arrival business is a service which is sold to these people when they get to Indonesia. They don't leave their country of origin in leaky boats. No one in Indonesia is holding a gun to their head so they are safe there.
When they get to Indonesia, some smooth talking con man sells them the idea of immediate acceptance into Australia if they avail themselves of the services they are offering.
These people have no interest in the welfare of their passengers, no interest in their safety, no interest in anything except what they can make out of the trade.
They advise the refugees as to what to say, what papers to lose etc.
If you want their leaky boat business to continue booming and if you want this to become the accepted method of immigration into Australia then be soft on the people who buy that service.
The people in Indonesia who organise these things watch the outcomes closely so they can quote the success rates to their next boat load of customers.
If the success rate is high as it has been lately then it can only result in more of the same. Much more, and then much much more.

Somewhere down the line a decision will have to be made as to how to put an end to this debacle. I think the Government now recognises this.

All I am doing is stating the obvious.
Noone seems to be offering any solution to this problem except to say we should accept all the people who arrive this way.
That is NOT a solution. It's an invite for more of the same.
Think ahead to the logical consequence of this and see if it's acceptable, because I think it is not.

maxm, your comment

"if my house was burning down or a gun toting thief was invading it I'd sure hate to have you for a neighbour."

does nothing more than reinforce my view that Australians are no better at handling their differences than any other people.
When someone else holds a view different from their own, some people resort to slander and personal abuse which then escalates into violence and criminal acts.
It's generally what eventually escalates into racial hatred.
All I've done is express a view which is obviously different to yours.
Feel free to address the points raised but try and be civil.

Now, as to addressing the points raised - if you're aim is to stop people smugglers then you and GD will no doubt be supporting our governments efforts to get Indonesia to declare people smuggling illegal, yes? Surely that's a better solution than chasing off the poor wretches who come here looking for help.

I'm with you there - I feel no particular empathy for the people smugglers and their trade.

maxm said...

pweedas said...


maxm, your comment

"if my house was burning down or a gun toting thief was invading it I'd sure hate to have you for a neighbour."

does nothing more than reinforce my view that Australians are no better at handling their differences than any other people.
When someone else holds a view different from their own, some people resort to slander and personal abuse which then escalates into violence and criminal acts.
It's generally what eventually escalates into racial hatred.
All I've done is express a view which is obviously different to yours.
Feel free to address the points raised but try and be civil.

That's strange... I thought I had been civil. Are you saying I haven't been? If so then I can't see where I've slandered or abused you. Where was that?

I think the statement "I'd sure hate to have you for a neighbour." directed towards someone you have never met and solely on the basis that they hold an opinion which is different from yours is certainly NOT being civil.
I think if I had made a similar statement directed your way you would easily recognise it as such.
The statement is clearly made with no other intention other than as an insult to the recipient. In effect, slander, a form of verbal abuse.
If there is any doubt in your mind on this, simply reverse the situation and gauge your response if that comment had been made by someone else and directed towards you.
That might help in reassessing your view when you say;

"That's strange... I thought I had been civil. Are you saying I haven't been? If so then I can't see where I've slandered or abused you. Where was that? "

I hope that has been of some assistance.

pweedas said...If there is any doubt in your mind on this, simply reverse the situation and gauge your response if that comment had been made by someone else and directed towards you.

OK, done that. Nope, I have no trouble with the idea. Nothing within me demands that my neighbours have to love me.

That won't stop me helping them if they're in trouble, mind you.

Smedg said...

chill out pweedas.


civilly speaking, your pants are to tight. you only have to look in the mirror to see this

I'm chilled bro.
And what do you expect? I've had them since I was 14.
They still fit don't they?

Refugee swuspensions turns victims into criminals
DAMIEN KINGSBURY
April 13, 2010 - 5:57AM

Imagine, if you can, that you have spent the past 30 or more years in an environment of war, where your security is at best not guaranteed and at worst you and your loved ones have been regularly exposed to physical attack. Some, or many, people you have known and loved have been killed and many more bear the physical scars of war. Everyone bears its psychological scars.

You are at best a political outcast and at worst vulnerable to repression, physical abuse, or worse. You or your sons or daughters flee your once loved home, seeking respite, hoping you can find safety and acceptance elsewhere.

This is the situation facing Sri Lanka's Tamils and many Afghanis, who in desperation seek refuge in one of the countries lucky enough to be able to offer it. What they find, however, is that they are treated as criminals.

The Australian government's decision to suspend processing of Tamil and Afghani asylum seekers is saying to such people that you may have suffered for reasons no greater than your ethnicity, but if you come here we will imprison you without trial for at least three months.

This decision, which is to be reviewed after three months but which may continue, is intended to stop the increase in asylum seekers from these two countries. Sadly, it focuses on the most visible and usually the most desperate of "illegal immigrants", who are but a tiny minority of people entering Australia seeking asylum.

The problems with this new policy, if it had the forward planning to be called that, are almost as numerous as they are disturbing. For a start, identifying two ethnic groups for differentiated treatment is implicitly racist and explicitly contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act. The government is breaking its own law.

By refusing to process refugee applications, the government is also in breach of the UN Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory.

The Rudd government came to office in 2007 with a policy of more humane treatment of asylum seekers and made some initial steps in that direction. This change, then, contradicts the ALP's own policy and will alienate many Labor members and supporters.

The government is clearly hoping that by "getting tough" on asylum seekers – a term of that implies beating up the most vulnerable – it will limit Coalition attacks on "border protection". Just to clarify, by the way, Australia is not in imminent danger of foreign invasion. This is less a retreat to the policies of the previous Howard government and more a reversion to the type of racist paranoia that once informed the "white Australia policy".

The response of Labor supporters who deeply opposed the former government's immigration policies should be of concern to the government. Labor's once safest seats, such as Melbourne, are now vulnerable to the Greens, who will pick up most Labor dissenters.

By playing to the lowest common denominator, Labor could actually lose, rather than secure, its electoral position. And of course, that is what this cheap and nasty ploy is about – this year's federal elections.

Within the government's new policy are the deeper questions related to the "suspension" of due legal process. Assuming our laws are designed to protect fundamental human rights, this denial of access to due process is a denial of basic human rights. Human rights, by the way, also apply to Tamils and Afghanis – they are also human.

As we have learned from countries that regularly abrogate basic human rights, the denial of such rights is an end in itself. This then parallels the legal axiom, coined by the most famous 19th century British prime minister William Gladstone and which still echoes through Australian courts to this day, that "justice delayed is justice denied".

Immigration Minister Chris Evans has rationalised this suspension of due legal process on the unsustainable grounds that in three months the situation in both Sri Lanka and Afghanistan might have improved. Clearly he is receiving poor advice about the situation on the ground in both places, and perhaps does not even read daily newspaper.

In Afghanistan, following a fraudulent election, the "war on terror" is at best at a stalemate, if not going backwards. Afghanistan remains a country mired in warfare and violent ethnic discrimination and will do so for years yet. In Sri Lanka, ethnic Tamils are now openly persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity, removed from their lands and made second class citizens, if that, in their own homes.

Just days ago, recently re-elected President Mahinda Rajapaksa told a Tamil gathering that if they did not like the new situation in Sri Lanka, in which about 100,000 are still in concentration camps and hundreds of thousands more are homeless, they should leave. Yet just two days before the announcement of Australia's new "processing suspension" policy, Sri Lanka's foreign minister told Australia not to accept Tamils fleeing persecution as they might harbour resentment against his government.

Australia has effectively sided with the Sri Lankan government, now universally known for its closure of a free media, curbing the judiciary and jailing its opposition leader.

When Australians voted for a new government in 2008, one of their greatest concerns was the previous government's appeal to Australia's racist minority through the persecution of asylum seekers. The Rudd government was thus elected with a mandate to act in a humane and rational manner towards the victims of war and discrimination.

Perhaps Australian voters were thinking that if they had been in the situation outlined at the beginning of this article, they might hope for some small amount of kindness and refuge. If the situation was reversed, who among us could accept that as victims we should then be treated as criminals?

Professor Damien Kingsbury holds a personal chair in the School of International and Political Studies at Deakin University.

The article by Damien Kingsbury reproduced above expresses sentiments which are completely understandable and thus the initial reaction is to agree with it all and criticise any move along the lines which the previous government took and now the present government is taking, that is, to put in place measures which discourages unauthorised and unregulated arrivals.
Unfortunately, what it fails to do is to consider the logical outcome of not doing that.

It is true that the present number of refugees arriving into Australia are a relatively small number, but it is a small number only because of the previous governments strict policies and the knowledge that we would adhere to them.

There are probably more than a hundred million people who would like to come to Australia spread over dozens of "hot spots" throughout the world . We simply cannot accommodate all of them.
Therefore at some point in the process we have to be rude to someone and refuse them entry.
Every time we accept a boatload of refugees, it sends a signal throughout the world to load up another two boats and send them over.
The question is then, do we accept them all? And if we don't intend to accept them all, how do we propose to regulate it?

If we do not make this form of entry unattractive and difficult then it is beyond doubt that the numbers will increase alarmingly.
It's not a matter of being inhumane or racist or anything else like it. It is a matter of practical reality.

The article by Damien Kingsbury would have been deserving of much more applause if he had put forward even so much as one good idea on how this boat traffic and any other forms of illegal entry could be regulated. So far it seems his suggestion is that we should just accept them all. That is very short sighted of the consequences.

If anyone else has any good ideas, perhaps they can assist him.

cisco said...

If we make a decision to accept "any and all genuine refugees" based on a moral standpoint but there is no "practical reality" for them to come to, then the decision becomes immoral.

I'm not sure what you mean there cisco.
You will need to spell it out for me. Sorry.

maxm said...

So what are you really afraid of pweedas? Can't be a few thousand refugees, surely.

No you're right.
If you could promise me that's all there would be then I would be more than happy to have them in. 2000, 3000, 5000, no problem.
But if you think that's all there would be then you are badly mistaken.
I believe the numbers would very quickly rise to a few million. And then if we accepted that, there would be many millions more.
Compared to the Australian population it's a bottomless pit really.
There's always some despot or rotten regime somwhere that's worth escaping from.

I keep asking, at what point do we draw the line and how do we then stop the flow that we have established?
Otherwise, it would only stop when this country became as bad as the country they are seeking to escape.
So far, no answers from anyone.

I hope you're working on an alternative immigration policy there maxm because I will be very disappointed if you don't come up with something substantial after all this.
You've had plenty of time now.
Or was that it? Just let them all in?

I think smegd should put in a proposal too. He sounds like a deep thinker.
And cisco could give it shot too. He sounds like the practical type.
Although I think his would be "Everyone's welcome except Danes" and I'm not sure how well that would be received.

pweedas said...

maxm said...

So what are you really afraid of pweedas? Can't be a few thousand refugees, surely.

No you're right.
If you could promise me that's all there would be then I would be more than happy to have them in. 2000, 3000, 5000, no problem.
But if you think that's all there would be then you are badly mistaken.
I believe the numbers would very quickly rise to a few million. And then if we accepted that, there would be many millions more.
Compared to the Australian population it's a bottomless pit really.
There's always some despot or rotten regime somwhere that's worth escaping from.

I keep asking, at what point do we draw the line and how do we then stop the flow that we have established?
Otherwise, it would only stop when this country became as bad as the country they are seeking to escape.
So far, no answers from anyone.

I hope you're working on an alternative immigration policy there maxm because I will be very disappointed if you don't come up with something substantial after all this.
You've had plenty of time now.
Or was that it? Just let them all in?

I think smegd should put in a proposal too. He sounds like a deep thinker.
And cisco could give it shot too. He sounds like the practical type.
Although I think his would be "Everyone's welcome except Danes" and I'm not sure how well that would be received.

Deep thinker hey.. haha don't know about that but I do got more to say..

First off, You said this stuff earlier ".....which discourages unauthorised and unregulated arrivals. etc" suggesting that refugees aren't 'authorised and regulated...... They are authorised.... Refugees are allowed to seek asylum in our country. It's our policy. They are Regulated. Highly regulated. Regulated so strictly that many including myself think that their human rights are being violated.

Immigration is also highly regulated in my opinion but doubt we'll be able to keep this thread on track if we mix these two vastly different topics in the same thread. Lets talk about one thing at a time.

Next, not a chance in the world I'm going to suggest an 'alternative immigration policy'.... WTF Do you know what work something like that should involve... Not my job and certainly not my area of expertise. However, I will suggest that the best policy is likely to be very well considered and regularly adapted to improve areas that aren't working well for all parties affected.

As for you saying "I keep asking, at what point do we draw the line and how do we then stop the flow that we have established?
Otherwise, it would only stop when this country became as bad as the country they are seeking to escape.
So far, no answers from anyone."........ Man you could really benefit from challenging where some of your thoughts are coming from.

It seems almost unhelpful to respond to this question as you've really made some pretty massive assumptions... firstly that a time is likely to come where we should see ourselves as more important than others...?? Secondly that the flow of refugees to Australia is a negative thing...?? Thirdly that 'we established' the flow...?? Remember asylum seeking is about 'push factors' not 'pull factors' Next, (as the role of assumptions based possibly on underlying and unrecognised preconceptions about refugees continues) you assume that people seeking desperately to escape violence are going to somehow 'make our country as bad as the one they are trying to escape'.. Is it not what they are escaping that makes you refer to their county as bad??? why would they escape war then start war???

More likely in my opinion that the worst of a refugees problems after being granted citicenship is dealing with grief and loss of friends, family, home, culture etc and dealing with the odd Aussie who thinks they shouldn't be here or judges them before knowing them personally and empathising with them.

man its late. I'm going to bed. hope i've made some sense.. I'm pretty tired haha never used that smiley before. peace and love to all including legends wearing 'land rights for gay whales' shirts. haha. hope you never meet anyone without tolerance and understanding. It could be on.. haha

cisco said...
OK. The moral standpoint would be that "we are a generous society and are willing to help those in need" plus we are obligated to do that because of "international treaties" we have signed up to.

The "practical reality" has to be that we have enough surplus wealth to be able to fully support the refugee/immigrant for a limited amount of time after which opportunities must be available and compulsory for the refugee/immigrant to integrate into our society, become self sufficient and then repay/contribute to the surplus wealth that enabled them in the first place.

We are here to lift them UP. They should not come here and drag us DOWN.

If the effect of their immigration by whatever means, planes, trains or ships of travesty (look the word up in your dictionary), is a decline of our society towards the standards of the one they have just escaped, it is not a "practical reality" for them or us in the end.

Therefore, if we allow their entry to this country based on a moral principle that "we are here to help you", but in practical terms the reality is when they come here it will be a slow return to the conditions from which they have recently left, the morality of the decision becomes a lie. Lies are immoral.

That is the best I can do with that one pweedas. I hope you now have my drift.

All very clear now. And I entirely agree.
I'm voting cisco for president of the new republic.

Sorry smegd. I have to answer your closing question about whether you have made any sense, in the negative. i.e. No you have not.
Your analysis of my views and your assumptions based on this analysis are all waaaaay off beam and totally wrong.
I wont bother to try and correct them because I would have to re-state much of what I have already said. But you can take it that I do NOT hold the views that you think I do. e.g. that the immigrants would come here and make war, and about almost everything else you listed in that paragraph.

Anyway, to quote from the standard reply I get to many of my emails,

"Your feedback is greatly appreciated as it allows us the opportunity to address issues that are important to our customers. Please be assured that we will consider the suggestion you have provided."

pweedas said...
I'm voting cisco for president of the new republic.

Now that would be REALLY immoral considering my views on Danish backpackers.

haha. oh well. I RE read my post and whilst some sentences are on the long side and poorly punctuated.... It reads ok to me. If cisco or pweeds or both of you do get the chance to pinpoint which parts you disagree with/or don't understand I would appreciate it. I understand that you think it may mean repeating your earlier sentiments. But clarification is important if we are to truly have a chance of understanding each others points of view. And understanding each others points of view seems like a prerequisite for reaching an agreement or consensus of any kind. Rest assured that I have read this entire thread... But I've read it only through my own eyes, bringing to each comment what I expect the reader meant. This makes clarification important.

Cisco and pweeds... It seems you agree with each other that

"if we allow their entry to this country based on a moral principle that "we are here to help you", but in practical terms the reality is when they come here it will be a slow return to the conditions from which they have recently left, the morality of the decision becomes a lie. Lies are immoral."

I agree that its essential to consider morals as well as practical measures. And that its important that the practical measures support the morals. I certainly don't think that a trade off between moral and practical measures is the only solution though.

I question what it is that makes you think that 'when they come here it will be a slow return to the conditions from which they have recently left' .....???????

Do you think 'they' (the refugees) caused all the troubles they are fleeing? Do you think 'they' will attempt to slowly change life here into life in a war zone? Perhaps you think that they won't actively seek to change it that way but it will just go that way because of who 'they' are, where 'they're' from or because 'they' are different to 'Australians'?

Perhaps you don't think any of that.. But I really want to know what you do think. It seems to me that you think refugees will somehow make Australia worse. I don't think that is the case.

I think each refugee deserves humane treatment and the right to self determine, the right to recover and make a better life for themselves. Equal access to services and the same responsibility to follow Australian (and other including geneva conventions etc) law just like the rest of us in Aust. Some things some refugees do will be harmful to others, just as somethings some Australians do is harmful to others. Correspondingly, plenty will do good stuff too.... Best to minimise the harm by using and improving systems already in place. Best to push for understanding and empathy and at the very least tolerance rather than focus so strongly on protecting ourselves that the problems become amplified due to human rights being abused.

Little good will come from assuming a certain people will make things worse. Plenty of good will come from understanding and valuing human rights, ethics, responsibilities and each other. Plenty of good will come from working together to make decisions for the future based on thorough understanding and equally valuing of the concerns of all involved.

FACT: 90% of boat arrivals are genuine refugees.

FACT: Refugees do not arrive illegally. They are NOT illegal immigrants.

The refugees are entirely within their rights to arrive on our shores (or fudged off-shore legally grey areas) and claim refugee status.


The boat operaters/people smugglers do behave illegally.