On 25/09/2011 9:28 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell<m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote: It's worth reading John Howard's Wikipedia page. The first thing that stands out is his action to restrict gun ownership.
I've marked his page to read a bit latter. I like many of the economic things he and Costello did but he blew it all for me when he took us into a war that was so clearly wrong.
Remember the "babies overboard" lies by John Howard? Hardly a "liberal" approach to immigration.
Wasn't that a hell of a screw up! If you ever get a chance read something on the topic written by the head of the navy at the time. I saw a doco where he was allowed to speak freely about the experience. He is a spoilt and petulant man who should never have been given the post. Nothing at all like Angus Huston or Peter Cosgrove. If I were his commander or responsible politician I would never quite be sure he wasn't above sabotage for he's own benefit. (I should write a paper on what I think the problems are with our navy - stupid and way out of date in their thinking).
Given that Rolls-Royce (based in the UK) is one of the major manufacturers and a significant portion of the heavy passenger jets are from Boeing (based in the US) it seems reasonable to expect that those countries have some skilled people to repair them.
Airbus is based in France but has significant operations in the UK, Germany, and Spain. This seems to be further evidence that the UK is a good place to have heavy passenger jets serviced.
I don't know. That's not the feeling I get from the situation. The problem only ever crops up when Asians are involved. Even then the problems need to verified. It appears that every plane that has had problems the union blames on "cheap Asian labour" has not been serviced in Asia. The 747 City of Longreach wasn't but had problems, and 737's are domestic so aren't, the engines of the A380 Nancy Bird Walton were never serviced abroad. I think even the staples holding the wire together from some years ago turned out be a false claim. There was another 747 but I don't remember which one. I may be confusing it with the 747 that ran off the end of the runway.
Well we can start by treating people humanely while determining if they are refugees. Make the "innocent until proven guilty" principle apply.
I would have thought they could still be treated humanely and processed overseas. Then those that meet the requirements could be found suitable places elsewhere to act as a deterrent. With all due respect to Malaysia I don't agree with the Gillard solution.
Also, refuge is a privilege not a right. We need to think in terms of ourselves seeking refuge outside Australia to understand that.
There are lots of international agreements about humane treatment of people which give them rights that have been violated by the Australian government.
I can only point to my reply to Tim: "It will appear far more clear when you look, as I mentioned, at it from the other way around. Imagine it was you looking for refuge overseas. Perhaps after the Bob Brown strategy for dealing with "an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking". There is no guarantee you will be accepted by any other nation in your time of refuge just a vague hope."
The whole problem of undocumented arrivals is very complex and will take some time to resolve.
That "some time" should not be "some time in jail for children".
I think the detention centres have passed their use by date. Indeed, that happened by the 1960's when migrants were no longer forced to live in those ridiculous ex-military bungalows until they found a job and a place to live. I'm not sure what could be used instead. Perhaps a closed village with roads, schools, homes, shops and all the amenities needed for a reasonable stay. Then what do we do with Australians who can't live that well? Perhaps we could move them in too and kids on Austudy and,, well who knows what other problems it will create but the answer needs to be holistic including Austudy et al. Maybe when I retire the government can send me to an old folks home in Nauru and let those claiming refuge live in retirement villages here.
However, it is the governments job to do as the nation wishes.
No. We don't have a direct democracy. We have a representative democracy where we vote for representatives who are supposed to be better informed than us. Being better informed includes being aware of international agreements about human rights.
We've had this discussion before. I think that Australian governments are pretty good at working to a mandate, usually. If they politicians have a different opinion to the public they usually beat us about the head until we understand (See the long history of superannuation as a reference).
If the majority of Australians wanted the boats painted pink, no matter how stupid it may seem to the pollies, then they should be painted pink. I have a feeling this issue has also become an exercise by the Australian people of "we run this country, not the politicians". Something Australians seem to grasp far better than most others.
The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one significant example of controversial
I see what you mean but I would use the USA as an example of a public with informed consent and/or pollies that do what the public want.
de Klerk didn't have a referendum before starting the process that led to voting rights for Black people in South Africa. I don't think that anyone
I think he had a mandate from most of the South African people but don't know enough about ZA politics to comment much.
Having a representative Democracy and allowing politicians some freedom to vote with their conscience after elected has real benefits.
As a rule I would agree. I think most have values similar to the rest of us. With the exception of Julia's knowledge of economics. Which is surpassed by the average Second Form Economics student. Cheers, Mike