Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
From: "Lev Lafayette" With some familiarity with policy statements of political parties between elections you would become aware that high level statements are the norm.
< Lev fills in the many blanks in the "Greens" policy with a combination of common sense (as he sees it), the obvious (ditto), inferences from their general attitudes, current policies etc.> I have tried this approach myself in the past, but ran into a few problems. 1. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to someone else. If you have ever been involved in a business requirements workshop for an IT project you will have observed this phenomenon. I have frequently found that people regard the impossible as obvious (eg having been asked several times to implement solutions to NP-complete problems, and also to implement Human Level AI). 2. It is not clear when to apply common sense / the obvious versus existing policy versus inference from the current attitudes of the group in question. 3. There is no analysis of the implications and consequences of the policy. This is left as an exercise for the reader. The "Greens"' track record when they have made predictions on refugee policy is dismal. For example, they ridiculed the idea that softening policy on boat people would increase their numbers. This was so wrong that I think we need to add a new category of error to Pauli's three categories of error: a) Wrong b) Totally wrong c) Not even wrong (not even right enough to be meaningfully wrong) Perhaps we could add d) Green-wrong (so out of touch with the real world that it would be a complete fluke if their prediction had any information value at all). 4. If the reader performs the analysis based on filling in the blanks then we run into the final problem which is the denial that that was what was intended. Some examples: Let's say we take on board the suggestion that all refugee applications must be finalized within 12 months, which sounds reasonable. But remember, refugees are to be granted full access to the Australian legal system, with appeals, and will be eligible for legal aid. Anyone who has been involved in the legal system will be aware that fully running through the court processes in 12 months is not to be expected. And this is assuming that the administrative processes, including on-site investigations, waiting for replies from foreign governments etc can be done in 12 months. There seems to be a contradiction here. You cannot realistically resolve all claims in 12 months *and* give people full access to the courts. Also we have been told people should be able to work in Australia while their situation is being determined. And we are not going to break up families, so if two people have a child while they are here for several years, and the child has an enhanced claim on staying, and we are not going to break up families? The implication is that you can come here, get a work permit, string out the determination process until you have a child and it will be very hard ever to get you out of the country. Even the opportunity to work in Australia for 3-5 years is very valuable. I met a guy about 20 years ago in Bali who had gone to Australia and worked for a few years, then returned, a rich man in local terms - he was able to buy a nice house, had a young and pretty wife and had bought a good business. Not bad. How many people would like to take up such an opportunity? So you get told, oh no your assumptions are wrong. They will only get legal aid money and access to the appeals process if their appeal has a strong chance to succeed. So who decides this? Bureaucrats of course! So you are saying they actually will not have full access to the courts? No, .... And you run around the mulberry bush indefinitely. A pointless waste of time. Lev it might be helpful though for you to put up your own proposal and your analysis of its implications. But this fill in the blanks approach does not work. Tim
Methinks that you could summarise all this issue in one easy go: A humanitarian and well thought out real solution demands a bi-partisan approach. ALL POLITICAL PARTIES in OZ at the moment are too busy throwing rocks at each other. There will be no answer while it continues. Just endless, ill informed and brainless debate from all sides. BW On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
From: "Lev Lafayette"
With some familiarity with policy statements of political parties between elections you would become aware that high level statements are the norm.
< Lev fills in the many blanks in the "Greens" policy with a combination of common sense (as he sees it), the obvious (ditto), inferences from their general attitudes, current policies etc.>
I have tried this approach myself in the past, but ran into a few problems.
1. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to someone else. If you have ever been involved in a business requirements workshop for an IT project you will have observed this phenomenon. I have frequently found that people regard the impossible as obvious (eg having been asked several times to implement solutions to NP-complete problems, and also to implement Human Level AI).
2. It is not clear when to apply common sense / the obvious versus existing policy versus inference from the current attitudes of the group in question.
3. There is no analysis of the implications and consequences of the policy. This is left as an exercise for the reader.
The "Greens"' track record when they have made predictions on refugee policy is dismal. For example, they ridiculed the idea that softening policy on boat people would increase their numbers. This was so wrong that I think we need to add a new category of error to Pauli's three categories of error:
a) Wrong
b) Totally wrong
c) Not even wrong (not even right enough to be meaningfully wrong)
Perhaps we could add
d) Green-wrong (so out of touch with the real world that it would be a complete fluke if their prediction had any information value at all).
4. If the reader performs the analysis based on filling in the blanks then we run into the final problem which is the denial that that was what was intended.
Some examples:
Let's say we take on board the suggestion that all refugee applications must be finalized within 12 months, which sounds reasonable. But remember, refugees are to be granted full access to the Australian legal system, with appeals, and will be eligible for legal aid. Anyone who has been involved in the legal system will be aware that fully running through the court processes in 12 months is not to be expected. And this is assuming that the administrative processes, including on-site investigations, waiting for replies from foreign governments etc can be done in 12 months. There seems to be a contradiction here. You cannot realistically resolve all claims in 12 months *and* give people full access to the courts.
Also we have been told people should be able to work in Australia while their situation is being determined. And we are not going to break up families, so if two people have a child while they are here for several years, and the child has an enhanced claim on staying, and we are not going to break up families? The implication is that you can come here, get a work permit, string out the determination process until you have a child and it will be very hard ever to get you out of the country. Even the opportunity to work in Australia for 3-5 years is very valuable. I met a guy about 20 years ago in Bali who had gone to Australia and worked for a few years, then returned, a rich man in local terms - he was able to buy a nice house, had a young and pretty wife and had bought a good business. Not bad. How many people would like to take up such an opportunity?
So you get told, oh no your assumptions are wrong. They will only get legal aid money and access to the appeals process if their appeal has a strong chance to succeed. So who decides this? Bureaucrats of course! So you are saying they actually will not have full access to the courts? No, ....
And you run around the mulberry bush indefinitely. A pointless waste of time.
Lev it might be helpful though for you to put up your own proposal and your analysis of its implications. But this fill in the blanks approach does not work.
Tim
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:25:03 Brent Wallis wrote:
A humanitarian and well thought out real solution demands a bi-partisan approach. ALL POLITICAL PARTIES in OZ at the moment are too busy throwing rocks at each other.
The Liberal and Labor parties have similar approaches to asylum seekers, both based on cowardice and racism. The Greens are willing to work with anyone, it may seem that they are throwing rocks, but how else should you treat people like Tony Abbott? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Glad you answered Russell. Adam Bandy Legs is just another shill. Get Adam and or any other Green to join me in a PNG visit paid for out of their own hard earned (stress that, they need to show that they truly care and not just use up some donors cash!!!) and I will gladly walk down Collins St naked in response. If they do, then I can assure you that they will change their tune really quickly cos they will find that their stance is really just spin and BS!...Actually, I would welcome it if you can get Adam to do it...let's see if he has the carnacks to put his policies on the line!!! Sipping Lattes in Lygon St does not give them the right to quote or judge what is happening in Manus. BW PS: Task for the assembled watchers...... what unique characteristic defines a Manus Island Local??? No answer? Well there is one...and if you do not know, then how can you make comment on what has happened over there??? The media are no guide...be it Global (Green) Mail, the (Blue) Australian or (Red) Melbourne Age. Stop pitching fucking rocks and find a middle ground solution!! BW On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:25:03 Brent Wallis wrote:
A humanitarian and well thought out real solution demands a bi-partisan approach. ALL POLITICAL PARTIES in OZ at the moment are too busy throwing rocks at each other.
The Liberal and Labor parties have similar approaches to asylum seekers, both based on cowardice and racism. The Greens are willing to work with anyone, it may seem that they are throwing rocks, but how else should you treat people like Tony Abbott?
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:52:13 Brent Wallis wrote:
Glad you answered Russell.
Adam Bandy Legs is just another shill.
Your criticism of "throwing rocks" is very hypocritical.
BS!...Actually, I would welcome it if you can get Adam to do it...let's see if he has the carnacks to put his policies on the line!!! Sipping Lattes in Lygon St does not give them the right to quote or judge what is happening in Manus.
Why is it necessary to visit Manus Island? Australia has signed agreements to allow people to come here to seek asylum. There is nothing to be seen on Manus Island that affects those agreements.
PS: Task for the assembled watchers...... what unique characteristic defines a Manus Island Local??? No answer? Well there is one...and if you do not know, then how can you make comment on what has happened over there???
Manus Island locals (or "Locals" if there is a difference) aren't relevant to the issue of whether we should be running a prison camp there.
Stop pitching fucking rocks and find a middle ground solution!!
If you don't like people "throwing rocks" then stop doing it. There is no middle ground solution to be found when dealing with such things. We can't half-conform to international treatments, treating half the asylum seekers with dignity isn't adequate. We just have to stop doing cowardly evil things. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell, Please re-read what I wrote. Get Bandy to come over with me to Manus, paid for by himself and not a donor...get him to truly understand. Please oh please stop being an apologist that searches for cracks and problems. Why not become part of the solution? There is a middle ground in every discourse friend Russell. Solutions to such is what makes us humans automatically revere people like Ghandi and Mandella who both did it so well...during a monumental and required social change, they minimised human suffering and found the middle that satisfied both sides...this is what places them as undeniable movers in human history. There is a place for opposite views, and there is a time for conciliation... BW On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:52:13 Brent Wallis wrote:
Glad you answered Russell.
Adam Bandy Legs is just another shill.
Your criticism of "throwing rocks" is very hypocritical.
BS!...Actually, I would welcome it if you can get Adam to do it...let's see if he has the carnacks to put his policies on the line!!! Sipping Lattes in Lygon St does not give them the right to quote or judge what is happening in Manus.
Why is it necessary to visit Manus Island? Australia has signed agreements to allow people to come here to seek asylum. There is nothing to be seen on Manus Island that affects those agreements.
PS: Task for the assembled watchers...... what unique characteristic defines a Manus Island Local??? No answer? Well there is one...and if you do not know, then how can you make comment on what has happened over there???
Manus Island locals (or "Locals" if there is a difference) aren't relevant to the issue of whether we should be running a prison camp there.
Stop pitching fucking rocks and find a middle ground solution!!
If you don't like people "throwing rocks" then stop doing it.
There is no middle ground solution to be found when dealing with such things. We can't half-conform to international treatments, treating half the asylum seekers with dignity isn't adequate.
We just have to stop doing cowardly evil things.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:14:16 Brent Wallis wrote:
Get Bandy to come over with me to Manus, paid for by himself and not a donor...get him to truly understand.
You keep saying that people should accompany you on a visit to PNG. Why would anyone want to accept such an "offer"?
There is a middle ground in every discourse friend Russell. Solutions to such is what makes us humans automatically revere people like Ghandi and Mandella who both did it so well...during a monumental and required social change, they minimised human suffering and found the middle that satisfied both sides...this is what places them as undeniable movers in human history. There is a place for opposite views, and there is a time for conciliation...
The British wanted to keep the Indian subcontinent as a colony and white South Africans wanted to keep political control and not allow the vast majority of the population to outvote them. Grandi and Mandella succeeded by rejecting any plans for a compromise in that regard. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:14:16 Brent Wallis wrote:
Get Bandy to come over with me to Manus, paid for by himself and not a donor...get him to truly understand.
You keep saying that people should accompany you on a visit to PNG. Why would anyone want to accept such an "offer"?
Have I not been clear enough? Let me elucidate .... and make a point Yourself and others take the PNG people for granted....
You in particular make comment on other cultures and IMHO you have no right unless you have actually lived in these places. Not some 1st world Euro coffee destination...I mean a place where you have to live as locals do in a 3rd world context. Where your personal health and well being is threatened by malaria and heavens knows any other number of diseases and cultural issues. You have made comment in the past on how cool and righteous that it is to live as a hunter / gatherer on mother earth but in the end, you have no idea how much these guys want to have what you have...electricity that turns on with a switch, clean water out of a tap and be able to stroll down your own street without fear. ...and thats the whole Green fuktard problem. Too much 1st world angst over 3rd world cultures that you have no right to comment on cos you really only read it in a book!!. Why do I keep trolling you and the Green's on it? Well you keep making sweeping comments based on Wiki Articles and others "blogs".... its great to point to links of "truth" but if I am subject to another ad hominem argument over this I will vomit. Show me I am wrong! Place your own neck and cash on the line and prove me wrong! Fucking get out of Lygon Street and travel to a place where life can be lost because of a sip bad water or a mosi bite. Unless you and the rest of your ilk understand such then YOU CAN NOT BE ADVOCATES FOR THOSE THAT CLAIM THEY ARE ESCAPING FROM SAME! With Respect, I sincerely thought you were better than this. BW
There is a middle ground in every discourse friend Russell. Solutions to
such is what makes us humans automatically revere people like Ghandi and Mandella who both did it so well...during a monumental and required social change, they minimised human suffering and found the middle that satisfied both sides...this is what places them as undeniable movers in human history. There is a place for opposite views, and there is a time for conciliation...
The British wanted to keep the Indian subcontinent as a colony and white South Africans wanted to keep political control and not allow the vast majority of the population to outvote them. Grandi and Mandella succeeded by rejecting any plans for a compromise in that regard.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Mon, March 10, 2014 8:59 pm, Brent Wallis wrote:
Unless you and the rest of your ilk understand such then YOU CAN NOT BE ADVOCATES FOR THOSE THAT CLAIM THEY ARE ESCAPING FROM SAME!
Whilst I haven't been following this thread that closely, is it really the case that one has to go to a fourth world country to imagine the conditions of such a place and have sympathy for the people in such conditions? I agree that it's helpful to have such a visceral experience. But in some cases it would be a confirmation of what was already believed to be the case. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:14:16 Brent Wallis wrote:
Get Bandy to come over with me to Manus, paid for by himself and not a donor...get him to truly understand.
You keep saying that people should accompany you on a visit to PNG. Why would anyone want to accept such an "offer"?
Have I not been clear enough?
Let me elucidate .... and make a point Yourself and others take the PNG people for granted....
No.
You in particular make comment on other cultures and IMHO you have no right unless you have actually lived in these places.
In this discussion I have not been commenting on PNG. If the Australian government had established a prison in any other country my reaction would be the same.
You have made comment in the past on how cool and righteous that it is to live as a hunter / gatherer on mother earth but in the end, you have no
Really? When did I do that?
...and thats the whole Green fuktard problem.
Please don't make any more comments about a "middle ground" when you are so obviously incapable of discussion.
Too much 1st world angst over 3rd world cultures that you have no right to comment on cos you really only read it in a book!!.
Would you rather we just said nothing and let Tony Abbot's policies based on racism and fear win out?
Why do I keep trolling you and the Green's on it?
Stop trolling.
Well you keep making sweeping comments based on Wiki Articles and others "blogs".... its great to point to links of "truth" but if I am subject to another ad hominem argument over this I will vomit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Please learn what ad hominem is.
Show me I am wrong! Place your own neck and cash on the line and prove me wrong! Fucking get out of Lygon Street and travel to a place where life can be lost because of a sip bad water or a mosi bite.
Unless you and the rest of your ilk understand such then YOU CAN NOT BE ADVOCATES FOR THOSE THAT CLAIM THEY ARE ESCAPING FROM SAME!
In this discussion I have been advocating for people who are escaping from war zones and persecution. I have not been commenting on people who are escaping from bad water etc - the discussion hasn't been about such things. If you would like to discuss what the Australian government should do in regard to bad water etc then maybe you should start another thread.
With Respect, I sincerely thought you were better than this.
I never thought you were better than this. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Passionate debates are fine everyone, but do keep in mind the overriding principle; be friendly, and be helpful. If someone is mistaken, gently inform them that you think that they might be in error, and offer an alternative explanation. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
Passionate debates are fine everyone, but do keep in mind the overriding principle; be friendly, and be helpful.
If someone is mistaken, gently inform them that you think that they might be in error, and offer an alternative explanation.
Why yes; how silly of me, of course this is a dispassionate enquiry; not some attempt to establish the best debater !O:-) regards Rohan McLeod
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:09:49 Tim Josling wrote:
1. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to someone else. If you have ever been involved in a business requirements workshop for an IT project you will have observed this phenomenon. I have frequently found that people regard the impossible as obvious (eg having been asked several times to implement solutions to NP-complete problems, and also to implement Human Level AI).
The requirements are quite simple here, don't do anything evil and don't break international agreements. Unfortunately the cowards in the Liberal party want to only obey international agreements when it involves things like the TPP (IE giving more rights to foreign corporations than citizens) and not obey them in regard to human rights.
The "Greens"' track record when they have made predictions on refugee policy is dismal. For example, they ridiculed the idea that softening policy on boat people would increase their numbers. This was so wrong that I think we need to add a new category of error to Pauli's three categories of error:
After the Vietnam war we didn't impose horrible conditions on asylum seekers and the country is still mostly white. Don't worry, even if we get more asylum seekers Australia will remain a mostly white country for a long time to come.
Let's say we take on board the suggestion that all refugee applications must be finalized within 12 months, which sounds reasonable. But remember, refugees are to be granted full access to the Australian legal system, with appeals, and will be eligible for legal aid. Anyone who has been involved in the legal system will be aware that fully running through the court processes in 12 months is not to be expected. And this is assuming that the administrative processes, including on-site investigations, waiting for replies from foreign governments etc can be done in 12 months. There seems to be a contradiction here. You cannot realistically resolve all claims in 12 months *and* give people full access to the courts.
One of the Greens policies is to end the war on drugs. If that was implemented then the court delays would be greatly decreased.
Also we have been told people should be able to work in Australia while their situation is being determined. And we are not going to break up families, so if two people have a child while they are here for several years, and the child has an enhanced claim on staying, and we are not going to break up families? The implication is that you can come here, get a work permit, string out the determination process until you have a child and it will be very hard ever to get you out of the country. Even the opportunity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby That is often used in discussions of US immigration policies. But it seems that hardly anyone does it, it's just a good way to get the racist vote.
to work in Australia for 3-5 years is very valuable. I met a guy about 20 years ago in Bali who had gone to Australia and worked for a few years, then returned, a rich man in local terms - he was able to buy a nice house, had a young and pretty wife and had bought a good business. Not bad. How many people would like to take up such an opportunity?
Someone who is so dedicated would surely provide great benefits to the community for the few years they spent here. We should try and get more people to do that! -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (5)
-
Brent Wallis -
Lev Lafayette -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tim Josling