- luv-talk - luv.asn.au

Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
by tim josling 20 Aug '12

20 Aug '12

> "Tell Abbott and Gillard: don't punish refugees in my name" Can someone point me at a coherent explanation and analysis of an alternative policy? I have searched in vain. The ALP searched high and low for something better and failed to find it. If they could have found something better than reverting to the hated Howard policy I am sure they would have taken it. I don't mean platitudes a la the Green's web site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and Liberal are mean". I mean: a) What measures do we take in regard to people showing up? Do we try to inhibit this at all? Do we monitor arrivals? Based on the policy, how many people will show up and what would the cost and consequences be? What would the monitoring cost? What would be the numbers of boat people who arrive and how many would likely die at sea per annum? b) What do we do with the people who show up? Bearing in mind some will be refugees and others will be economic migrants, and others will be criminals. Do we allow anyone who arrives to stay? If not, how do we force the others to stay? Do we assess people, and what do we do with them in the meantime? What do we do with people we decide we don't want to allow to stay? How many people are likely to be in each category and what is the likely cost and impact? c) How many of the tens of millions of people in refugee status around the world will come to Australia. Will the policy imply an increase in overall immigration? Should other components be cut to compensate? What would be the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this change on current residents of Australia? d) What is the health, mental health and educational and vocational status of people who are likely to take advantage of the proposed system? What sort of citizens have refugees or other unscheduled arrivals made historically? Did this depend on our screening processes? What will be the economic and social impact? I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies. Nor do I mean to diminish the terrible plight of refugees and other impoverished people around the world. Personally my gut feel is we should quadruple the refugee quota but try to discourage people from arriving via dangerous boat journeys. I doubt our willingness and even our ability to take all of the tens of millions of refugees from around the world. Politicians are notorious for ignoring the second-order effects of their policies. Some material on second-order effects at this link http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/charlie-munger-ricardo-and-finance.… Tim Josling

8 15

Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
by Alex Hutton 19 Aug '12

19 Aug '12

Hi Tim, Did you see the links I posted? Eliminating the welfare state is the alternative, otherwise immigration must be controlled by some means or other. That's the fundamental point. So if we accept there is going to be a welfare state, it becomes a question of how to achieve effective immigration control. It seems to me that Temporary Protection Visas would be the most effective measure. I believe they are now being reintroduced as of last week. The wikipedia page for TPVs is not too bad if you are unfamiliar with them and the reasons why Labor removed them. Cheers, Alex On 18/08/2012 10:44 PM, "tim josling" <tej(a)melbpc.org.au> wrote: > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:47:51 +1000 > From: Rohan McLeod <rhn(a)jeack.com.au> > Subject: Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 > convention? > Cc: luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> > Message-ID: <502EE637.5010002(a)jeack.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Russell Coker wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling<tej(a)melbpc.org.au> wrote: > .......s... Yes. Thank you Rohan. All I am asking for is "Here is my proposed policy, and here is the evidence I have seriously thought through the consequences, including indirect consequences". Not "It is obvious that accepting anyone who shows up is the RIGHT THING TO DO and therefore the consequences must be OK". Not "Here is evidence Tony Abbott is a hypocrite and a liar!!!!!!!!!!". I am 57 years old. I am well aware that the vast majority of politicians are talented and experienced liars and thieves. Russel Coker said: "As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost would be less than the current policy no matter what you do." Can you point me at this "previous analysis"? I could not readily find it. As I said in my first post I did search in vain for evidence of a well-thought out alternative policy. As regards immigration as a solution to the so-called demographic time bomb, the studies I have seen suggest that the level of immigration required to substantially change this situation are extremely high and is not in prospect. Our current policies based on paying pensions using high population growth are basically a Ponzi scheme that must come to an end. I included the material by Charlie Munger as an *example* of second order effects. [Munger has made billions of dollars by understanding them. Whatever you might say about him, he is not silly and he is a lot smarted than most of the people on this list but that is not relevant to the issue of refugees]. Tim Josling _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au ht...

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?
by Alex Hutton 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

People who advocate that 'Australia' should help refugees are also playing politics. They are making themselves look humanitarian when in actual fact all they are doing is declaring how other people's money should be spent. If they really wanted to help refugees they should do something practical rather than complain that other people aren't doing enough. On 15/08/2012 10:17 AM, "Jason White" <jason(a)jasonjgw.net> wrote: Peter Ross <Peter.Ross(a)bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote: > I guess there are many decent people here, as ... There are, including people who support and advocate publicly for the rights and interests of refugees. > > It is just time to get rid of politicians who continue to kick powerless > people as asylum se... I would characterize it as playing politics with the lives of the most vulnerable. The problem with processing asylum claims outside the migration zone is that the applicants have no access to judicial review of decisions that may be made against them. Immigration officers sometimes make serious errors, which can only be corrected if there is a court with jurisdiction to decide the cases. The grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions are confined to matters of law; the facts can't be directly contested in court, and, to avoid a misconception, courts don't entertain frivolous claims. So the result of bad policy is that claims are evaluated in circumstances in which there is no judicial oversight of administrative decisions. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au htt...

5 6

Galaxy S3 review
by Russell Coker 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/battle-of-the-smartphones- iphone-4s-v-galaxy-s-iii-20120808-23sz9.html The above seems quite impressive. I've been waiting for someone to release a phone that can do video and still pictures at the same time and the ability to take 20 pictures automatically and then present the best 8 to the user seems to have a lot of potential if implemented properly. 4.8" is a decent size, but I'd rather have the Galaxy Note 2. Also it's nice to see Android phones kicking Apple's butt. Android isn't a great open platform, but it's a lot better than iOS. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

6 8

National Security petition
by Ben McGinnes 15 Aug '12

15 Aug '12

Hello, As some of you know, I've been holed up working on a submission to the PJCIS for the National Security Legislation Inquiry. While most of you have neither the time, nor the inclination to do the same, can you at least sign this petition about it? http://pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry-petition/ For the quick and nasty overview, look at these short fliers: http://pirateparty.org.au/media/promotional/natsecinquiry_poster.png http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/natsecinquiry.pdf For slightly longer news articles, read these: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/government-unveils-huge-wishlist-of-new… https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/australian-government-moves-expand-su… http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/23/hypothetical-news-from-a-national-secur… Even more info is available here: http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Security_Inquiry My more in depth reading of the government proposals indicate that it will easily be possible for the powers that be to spy on anyone or criminalise them, regardless of whether or not they've actually committed any crimes (it would easily be possible to send anyone to jail). It's actually quite hideous, which is why I'm breaking with my normal policy of not sending things like this to everyone I know. There are some rather nasty aspects of this which should definitely be of concern to LUV members. Like the sections making failure to assist in decryption of data crime, being able to modify or delete data on a system and use of third party systems and networks to access a system targeted by a warrant. Regards, Ben

4 4

Amiga User Group of Victoria fund-raising auction 3pm Sunday, Wadham House Mt Waverley
by David E Payne 15 Aug '12

15 Aug '12

Amiga User Group of Victoria is having a fund-raising auction 3pm, Sunday 19th August, Wadham House, Mount Waverley which is just North of the local library just North of the railway station. (Part of their meeting which starts at 2pm). $5 fee if you want to SELL something OR $2 to visit (or buy) only. http://aug.org.au/

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] National Security petition
by Tim Hamilton 15 Aug '12

15 Aug '12

> From: Ben McGinnes <ben(a)adversary.org> > To: luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:35:25 +1000 > Subject: [luv-talk] National Security petition > Hello, > As some of you know, I've been holed up working on a > submission to the PJCIS for the National Security Legislation Inquiry. > > While most of you have neither the time, nor the inclination to do the > same, can you at least sign this petition about it? > > http://pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry-petition/ > > For the quick and nasty overview, look at these short fliers: > > http://pirateparty.org.au/media/promotional/natsecinquiry_poster.png > http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/natsecinquiry.pdf > > For slightly longer news articles, read these: > > http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/government-unveils-huge-wishlist-of-new… > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/australian-government-moves-expand-su… > http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/23/hypothetical-news-from-a-national-secur… > > Even more info is available here: > > http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Security_Inquiry > > My more in depth reading of the government proposals indicate that it > will easily be possible for the powers that be to spy on anyone or > criminalise them, regardless of whether or not they've actually > committed any crimes (it would easily be possible to send anyone to > jail). It's actually quite hideous, which is why I'm breaking with my > normal policy of not sending things like this to everyone I know. > > There are some rather nasty aspects of this which should definitely be > of concern to LUV members. Like the sections making failure to assist > in decryption of data crime, being able to modify or delete data on a > system and use of third party systems and networks to access a system > targeted by a warrant. > > > Regards, > Ben > Ben, thanks for taking the time to author a submission to the enquiry and for forwarding on these links. As you say many of us don't have the inclination or the time to look deeply into issues like this that seem at first glance not to have a large impact on our day to day lives. Hopefully this will prove the impetus some of us need to bring these issues to a wider audience. Cheers Tim Hamilton -- On the internet, no one can hear you </sarcasm>

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] luv-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 8
by tim josling 15 Aug '12

15 Aug '12

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:08 +1000, luv-talk-request(a)lists.luv.asn.au wrote: > I am sick of this "boat people drama" going on for 10 years. It is > the > meanest, nastiest debate I came across so far in a democratic society. > > Agree. I think Julia Gillard has realised that most people feel this way and so she is now moving to close the issue down by basically reimplementing the Howard Government's policy, which Labor dismantled on gaining office. Tony Abbott has signalled the opposition will support the needed legislation. One good thing to come out of this is that our refugee quota will be increased, though not as much as I would like. (There are about 10,000,000 refugees around the world so it is not realistic to take them all here in Oz). Tim Josling

2 1

Re: [luv-talk] Battery lifetime [Was: Custom battery charging levels]
by Trent W. Buck 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

Bianca Gibson wrote: > Actually, I can do better :P. I can put a slice on the bottum (an > extra 9 cells). Then it runs for 2 days (including leaving it > suspended overnight) without charging. Niiiiiice. Now to "win" I have to change the game and bring in mass as a metric ;-)

2 1

unsubscribe
by Paul Holt 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

unsubscribe -- Sent from my phone-like device. On Aug 14, 2012 3:56 PM, "Ben McGinnes" <ben(a)adversary.org> wrote: > On 14/08/12 12:45 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > Ben McGinnes wrote: > >> http://pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry-petition/ > > > > Oops, of course if I just follow the link, this URL works: > > > > http://petitions.pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry > > The other link loads that one in a frame. > > > It assumes everyone has a single first name and a single last name, > > which is broken :-) > > Yeah, I forgot to check if it worked with mononyms, that's bad. > > > <input type='email' id='email' name='email' value=""> > > > > That isn't recognized as an input field, thugh, because email is not > > a valid @type for INPUT as at HTML4. That last appears to be what > > yields "There are incomplete fields." and prevents me signing it. > > Okay, I've forwarded this to the PPAU Secretary. > > > Regards, > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > luv-talk mailing list > luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk > >

1 0