25 Sep
25 Sep
8:42 a.m.
...or had I had one too many beers?
Apparently it was. I missed it myself so if anyone has saved it let me know.
The story is here, along with a pretty unflattering shot of my mug.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-25/melbourne-man-lodges-gillard-grievanc…
Best wishes, Lev
12:01 p.m.
lev(a)levlafayette.com <lev(a)levlafayette.com> wrote:
The story is here, along with a pretty unflattering
shot of my mug.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-25/melbourne-man-lodges-gillard-grievanc…
This is good strategy on Lev's part; I hope that more people associated with
the ALP will do the same.
The most interesting analysis that I have heard of why the leadership of the
Labor Party supports off-shore processing of applications for refugee status
was given by a commentator who summarized the situation as follows. According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly xenophobic.
A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by
the Coalision - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last
election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to
this issue. Then there is another small proportion (10%?) who favour more
humane treatment of refugees - but these people tend consistently to vote for
the Greens, so they aren't strategically relevant to the Labor Party's
electoral prospects.
The strategic conclusion is that it lies in the government's interests to
adopt similar policies to the Coalision in connection with asylum seekers; the
High Court's interpretation of the Migration Act and the desire of the ALP to
distinguish itself from the Coalision's policy has resulted in its pursuing
legislative changes that are at least as extreme as what the Coalision would
introduce.
To be totally clear on this point, I am strongly in favour of the rights of
refugees and asylum seekers and opposed to any policy that would diminish
those rights or exacerbate the suffering of people who are already vulnerable
and who have lived with the experience, or at least the well-founded fear of
persecution. I do not support either off-shore processing of claims or
mandatory detention; and I don't vote for the Labor Party either.
12:46 p.m.
Sorry - I just remembered having posted a substantially similar contribution
to a discussion of the same topic on this list before.
1:25 p.m.
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly xenophobic.
A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by
the Coalition - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last
election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to
this issue.
I'm not so sure that the Coalition attracts a more xenophobic follower
than the ALP. Traditionally, including the Howard government, the
Coalition, and its conservative predecessor, have adopted a more liberal
approach to immigration. Although the driving force has not always been
altruistic. A _terrific_ example of almost ALP xenophobia going on at
the moment is the Qantas engineers industrial action. They have not said
a word about the Qantas aircraft being maintained by Americans and
British maintenance staff at other destinations but those "strange"
Asian types!? I think they'd like to kill 'em.
NOTE: I've worked for, Australian Air Express, a Qantas subsidiary and
they really don't like anything to do with Singapore or its Airline.
Then there is another small proportion (10%?) who
favour more
humane treatment of refugees
I really believe that almost all Australians support the humane
treatment of refugees _BUT_ how on earth do we know that the people who
arrive here under their own steam _ARE_ refugees?! Also, refuge is a
privilege not a right. We need to think in terms of ourselves seeking
refuge outside Australia to understand that.
To be totally clear on this point, I am strongly in
favour of the rights of
refugees and asylum seekers and opposed to any policy that would diminish
those rights or exacerbate the suffering of people who are already vulnerable
and who have lived with the experience, or at least the well-founded fear of
persecution. I do not support either off-shore processing of claims or
mandatory detention; and I don't vote for the Labor Party either.
Ditto on the humane treatment of refugees, but Australia should be
selecting who is and who is not a refuge. Until they are deemed to be
refugees they are here without visas.
I believe we need to deter those taking advantage of Australia when they
are without need of refuge.
I did vote Labor in the last election, and I'd like to take this
opportunity to apologise.
And as most proponents of "let 'em all in" seem to think that those who
aren't are racist bastards, I strongly believe that immigration is vital
to this country and I believe offering refuge on compassionate grounds
is vital to our humanity and moral fibre.
The whole problem of undocumented arrivals is very complex and will take
some time to resolve. However, it is the governments job to do as the
nation wishes. 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.
Cheers,
Mike
PS: I thought that was you on telly last night Lev! You're a movie star
now, can I have your autograph?!
2:59 p.m.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell wrote:
It should be fairly simple. It *should* be common knowledge that more
than 90% of "boat people" eventually are found to be refugees.
Unfortunately, that's not common knowledge, partly because 70% of our
media is controlled by the one organisation who pander to the lowest
common denominator of poorly educated xenophobic people.
No, that's not how the refugee convention works.
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
It's interesting, isn't it? The Liberal party in Australia are rarely
more small l-liberal. But Malcolm fraser was a whole lot more fair than
any of the current mob (apart from the whole bringing down Whitlam thing).
You'd expect Labor, the party of the unions, to be more into
protectionalism. But they started the deregulation several decades ago.
But also more into xenophobia, because they tend to get supported by the
very poor, who partly because of their lack of education, always feel
under threat by "outsiders". But being on the left of the Liberals
(another bizaaro. Liberal once meant small-l-liberal, but not in
Australia anymore), you'd expect them to have left leaning policies. I
guess they wanted to not make the same mistake they did the last time they
got seriously wedged in, IIRC, the 2004 election (or was it 2001?).
I'm rambling. Politics in Australia is weird. I honestly don't
understand why the Greens dont get more votes. Perhaps because the
leader, Bob Brown, is so uncharismatic (but then again, did John Howard,
Julia Gillard or Tony Rabbit have any charisma?) and playing the victim
all the time.
According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly xenophobic.
A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by
the Coalition - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last
election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to
this issue.
I'm not so sure that the Coalition attracts a more xenophobic follower
than the ALP. Traditionally, including the Howard government, the
Coalition, and its conservative predecessor, have adopted a more liberal
approach to immigration. Although the driving force has not always been
altruistic. A _terrific_ example of almost ALP xenophobia going on at
the moment is the Qantas engineers industrial action. They have not said
a word about the Qantas aircraft being maintained by Americans and
British maintenance staff at other destinations but those "strange"
Asian types!? I think they'd like to kill 'em.
NOTE: I've worked for, Australian Air Express, a Qantas subsidiary and
they really don't like anything to do with Singapore or its Airline.
To be fair, I think the driver (at least my driver when I signed a
petition) of the current Qantas despute about maintanance, is that to have
trust in your aircraft (or other infrastructure), it has to be maintained
by people in your team. People that you can theoretically know. People
that you can talk problems through with. Certainly not people who have
been outsourced, and might potentially be lowest bidder.
When I was working for a company that had headquarters 500km away, we had
an inherent distrust of any of the equipment being designed and built by
headquarters. It would always need a lot of fixup when it was finally
shipped up, and that work required to make it actually work was never
recognised by management. But the shift staff always were themselves
operational staff when not on shift, so the interaction amongst everyone
in operations and shiftwork built trust that we at least knew how to keep
things working.
Then there is
another small proportion (10%?) who favour more
humane treatment of refugees
I really believe that almost all Australians support the humane
treatment of refugees _BUT_ how on earth do we know that the people who
arrive here under their own steam _ARE_ refugees?! Also, refuge is a privilege not a right.
What? I'm pretty sure it's in the Geneva conventions or similar.
To be totally
clear on this point, I am strongly in favour of the rights of
refugees and asylum seekers and opposed to any policy that would diminish
those rights or exacerbate the suffering of people who are already vulnerable
and who have lived with the experience, or at least the well-founded fear of
persecution. I do not support either off-shore processing of claims or
mandatory detention; and I don't vote for the Labor Party either.
Ditto on the humane treatment of refugees, but Australia should be
selecting who is and who is not a refuge. Until they are deemed to be
refugees they are here without visas. The whole problem of undocumented arrivals is very
complex and will take
some time to resolve. However, it is the governments job to do as the
nation wishes.
I was kinda hoping that we elected leaders to lead. One some difficult
issues, they should lead public opinion instead of follow it. Put out
education campaigns. It would be nice if they could rely on the media to
do the right thing instead of doing the profitable thing.
At least we're not quite as bad as the Italian Berlusconi scenario.
--
Tim Connors
5:53 p.m.
Good on you Lev for taking a stand.
It's good to see some progress in parts of the media on getting more
information to the public. Go Back To Where You Came From, and the ABC
documentary on the Tampa affair that aired recently were both great at
getting to the heart of what is a confronting and complex issue for the
whole world.
*The most interesting analysis that I have heard of why the leadership of
the
Labor Party supports off-shore processing of applications for refugee status
was given by a commentator who summarized the situation as follows.
According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly
xenophobic.
A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by
the Coalision - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last
election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to
this issue. Then there is another small proportion (10%?) who favour more
humane treatment of refugees - but these people tend consistently to vote
for
the Greens, so they aren't strategically relevant to the Labor Party's
electoral prospects.
*
They're being led by the polling instead of taking a moral stance. But, I
guess the MPs are the ones who have to get reelected... hey will decide on
their policies on that basis. I do wonder if Labor should be trying to lead
public opinion on issues instead of trying to follow it.
8:50 p.m.
Good on you Lev for taking a stand.
Thanks Edward.
They're being led by the polling instead of taking
a moral stance. But, I
guess the MPs are the ones who have to get reelected... hey will decide on
their policies on that basis. I do wonder if Labor should be trying to
lead
public opinion on issues instead of trying to follow it.
I suspect those figure that you've cited are largely correct. But as you
suggest, there's little to be gained by pandering to what are effectively
racist prejudices instead of trying to change these prejudices.
One simple and effective tactic used by the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre
(which entirely funded by donations and volunteers) is to simply introduce
people to actual refugees so people can hear their side of the story.
Best wishes, Lev
11:48 p.m.
On 25/09/2011 8:50 PM, lev(a)levlafayette.com wrote:
is to simply introduce
people to actual refugees so people can hear their side of the story.
That's an excellent idea Lev. I would also ask that the meetings be
tempered by having those that aren't refugees attend too.
I'm old, so I've meet many refugees from the older countries. Worked and
lived with them too. Ask the chick that owns and runs The Cuckoo what it
is like to be a refugee. She defected from East Germany. I have another
friend that did the same from Poland. The Cold War didn't end that long
ago but we seem to have forgotten the lessons and the costs.
To me, a refugee is best explained by the scenes in films taken during
World War Two. The destitute people walking from one town or city to the
next without purpose or hope or knowing what was waiting for them needed
refuge. I strongly suspect the real refugees can not get themselves out
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the photos and films taken show those
people whose eyes have lost all direct focus. My heart bleeds for them
but they aren't the ones getting here.
Cheers,
Mike
26 Sep
26 Sep
midnight
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
To me, a refugee is best explained by the scenes in
films taken during
World War Two. The destitute people walking from one town or city to the
next without purpose or hope or knowing what was waiting for them needed
refuge. I strongly suspect the real refugees
This is a rhetorical technique that's often used by unsympathetic members of
the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority group.
Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the ones we see
aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them".
The situation for people in East Germany and Poland was by most measures a lot
better than that for people in Afghanistan now. Why do you have so much more
sympathy for Poles and Germans? Is it because they are white?
can not get themselves out
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the photos and films taken show those
people whose eyes have lost all direct focus. My heart bleeds for them
but they aren't the ones getting here.
We have adequate resources in Afghanistan to get people out. Are you
suggesting that our military should air-lift the "real victims" to Australia?
Another possibility is to just stop creating victims. If the Kurds and Shia
in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become separate
countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then instead of investing
so much blood and money in trying to achieve the impossible (make Iraq a
united country without having a despot like Saddam holding it together)
attention could be focussed on improving things in Afghanistan.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
1:04 a.m.
On 26/09/2011 12:00 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
No. I am saying that we need to select our refugees from those most in need.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me of using the same
technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained
about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our
compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
To me, a refugee is best explained by the scenes
in films taken during
World War Two. The destitute people walking from one town or city to the
next without purpose or hope or knowing what was waiting for them needed
refuge. I strongly suspect the real refugees
This is a rhetorical technique that's often used by unsympathetic members of
the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority group.
Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the ones we see
aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them". The situation for people in East Germany and Poland
was by most measures a lot
better than that for people in Afghanistan now. Why do you have so much more
sympathy for Poles and Germans? Is it because they are white?
I was thinking of the post World War Two era. 36 million dead Russians, etc.
can not get
themselves out
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the photos and films taken show those
people whose eyes have lost all direct focus. My heart bleeds for them
but they aren't the ones getting here.
We have adequate resources in Afghanistan to get people out. Are you
suggesting that our military should air-lift the "real victims" to Australia?
Another possibility is to just stop creating victims.
If the Kurds and Shia
in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become separate
countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then instead of investing
so much blood and money in trying to achieve the impossible (make Iraq a
united country without having a despot like Saddam holding it together)
attention could be focussed on improving things in Afghanistan.
Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with the sentiment in a
broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would
be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong
diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people.
As for Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy up. Bludgeoning
their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all the
way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already there.
Cheers,
Mike
11:48 a.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The death toll in Iraq has been high since the occupation and the death toll
in Afghanistan is probably higher - although I am not aware of any good
research.
I think that the death toll is high enough to make it reasonable to desire
refuge in another country.
The "strong diplomatic action" isn't such a good thing, recall the claims
that
500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of trade embargos.
Leaving the tyrant alone isn't required either, the CIA decided to withdraw
support for a rebellion against Saddam after the Kuwait war. The US also
supported Saddam for a long time before the invasion of Kuwait. If the US had
merely refrained from supporting Saddam or had given the promised support to
the rebellion then things would be different there.
On 26/09/2011 12:00 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people?
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me of using the same
technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained
about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our
compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces. To me, a refugee is best explained by the scenes
in films taken during
World War Two. The destitute people walking from one town or city to the
next without purpose or hope or knowing what was waiting for them needed
refuge. I strongly suspect the real refugees
This is a rhetorical technique that's often used by unsympathetic members
of the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority
group. Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the
ones we see aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them". The situation
for people in East Germany and Poland was by most measures
a lot better than that for people in Afghanistan now. Why do you have
so much more sympathy for Poles and Germans? Is it because they are
white?
I was thinking of the post World War Two era. 36 million dead Russians,
etc. Another
possibility is to just stop creating victims. If the Kurds and
Shia in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become
separate countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then
instead of investing so much blood and money in trying to achieve the
impossible (make Iraq a united country without having a despot like
Saddam holding it together) attention could be focussed on improving
things in Afghanistan.
Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with the sentiment in a
broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would
be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong
diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people. As for Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy
up. Bludgeoning
their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all the
way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already there.
They shouldn't have encouraged the USSR to invade there in the first place,
that was what really messed things up.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
11:51 a.m.
Huh? USSR's invasion to Afghanistan is somehow US fault?
-----Original Message-----
From: luv-talk-bounces(a)lists.luv.asn.au
[mailto:luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au] On Behalf Of Russell Coker
As for Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy
up. Bludgeoning
their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all
the
way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already
there.
They shouldn't have encouraged the USSR to invade there in the first
place,
that was what really messed things up.
"This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless
otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of
the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and
do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the
Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those
of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its
related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does
not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication,
computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the
Communication."
12:11 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, "Pidgorny, Slav" <slav.pidgorny(a)anz.com> wrote:
Huh? USSR's invasion to Afghanistan is somehow US
fault?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Saur_revolution_and_Soviet_war
The US wanted the USSR to have an expensive war to break their military and
economy. If the US government had confidence in their own system they would
have just continued the policy of containing the USSR and letting them do
their own thing - people who actually believe in capitalism believe that a
communist planned economy will naturally implode if left on it's own.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
12:12 p.m.
On 26/09/2011 11:48 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
The "strong diplomatic action" isn't such a good thing, recall the claims
that
500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of trade embargos.
When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan there are no good options, just
less evil options. That area has been a basket case for generations. In
some ways, even pre the biblical era.
I hadn't heard that the US encouraged the USSR to invade but it wouldn't
surprise me. It's a "good" tactic to screw up the USSR. The US has no
memory or considers themselves better than "history". If they had any
brains they would have realised the British had tried almost everything
they are trying to do now and failed, just like they are.
In many ways the USA is only up to Britons 1700's. Where laissez-faire
and obesity was the norm, dominance of the seas was mandatory and
self-belief exceeded their ability.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Cheers,
Mike
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
No. I am saying you lack compassion. You still treat those you choose to
call "rich" as the racists treat black skinned people. Bigotry,
including yours toward those "rich", comes from ignorance.
On 26/09/2011 12:00 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people? This is a rhetorical technique that's often
used by unsympathetic members
of the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority
group. Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the
ones we see aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them".
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me of using the same
technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained
about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our
compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The death toll in Iraq has been high since the occupation and the death toll
in Afghanistan is probably higher - although I am not aware of any good
research.
I think that the death toll is high enough to make it reasonable to desire
refuge in another country.
Desirable but not mandatory. The West should concentrate on improving
their lot at home.
Another possibility is to just stop creating victims.
If the Kurds and
Shia in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become
separate countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then
instead of investing so much blood and money in trying to achieve the
impossible (make Iraq a united country without having a despot like
Saddam holding it together) attention could be focussed on improving
things in Afghanistan.
Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with the sentiment in a
broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would
be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong
diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people. Leaving the tyrant alone isn't required either,
the CIA decided to withdraw
support for a rebellion against Saddam after the Kuwait war. The US also
supported Saddam for a long time before the invasion of Kuwait. If the US had
merely refrained from supporting Saddam or had given the promised support to
the rebellion then things would be different there.
If the US hadn't screwed around around, swapping sides every few years,
who knows what would have happened. For that matter, who knows what
other US screw ups haven't we heard about?
As for
Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy up. Bludgeoning
their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all the
way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already there.
They shouldn't have encouraged the USSR to invade there in the first place,
that was what really messed things up.
12:26 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
No. I am saying you lack compassion. You still treat those you choose to
call "rich" as the racists treat black skinned people. Bigotry,
including yours toward those "rich", comes from ignorance.
Racists want non-white people kept out of Australia, something you are
advocating in this thread.
What I want is for people to pay their fair share of taxes and not be
permitted to poison the environment (which means poisoning other people)
without paying for the mess to be cleaned up.
This isn't going to distract anyone from the racist policies you are
advocating.
When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan there are no good options, just
less evil options. That area has been a basket case for generations. In
some ways, even pre the biblical era.
Please provide evidence to support your claim that Afghanistan was somehow
worse than other parts of the world 2000+ years ago.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me
of using the same
technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained
about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our
compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people? Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with
the sentiment in a
broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would
be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong
diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people.
The "strong diplomatic action" isn't such a good thing, recall the claims
that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of trade embargos.
1:03 p.m.
I have lodged a complaint with the LUV committee over Russell's false
and defaming racist comments. I will wait for their decision before
continuing.
Cheers,
Mike
On 26/09/2011 12:26 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
No. I am saying you lack compassion. You still treat those you choose to
call "rich" as the racists treat black skinned people. Bigotry,
including yours toward those "rich", comes from ignorance.
Racists want non-white people kept out of Australia, something you are
advocating in this thread.
What I want is for people to pay their fair share of taxes and not be
permitted to poison the environment (which means poisoning other people)
without paying for the mess to be cleaned up.
This isn't going to distract anyone from the racist policies you are
advocating.
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me
of using the same
technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained
about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our
compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people? 
12:40 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell wrote:
In many ways the USA is only up to Britons 1700's.
Where laissez-faire
and obesity was the norm, dominance of the seas was mandatory and
self-belief exceeded their ability.
Damn. You mean it's going to take 300 years for the US to finally become
irrelevant? That's too long for my patience.
--
Tim Connors
7:44 a.m.
At 11:48 PM 9/25/2011, Mike Mitchell wrote:
I'm old, so I've meet many refugees from the
older countries. Worked and
lived with them too. Ask the chick that owns and runs The Cuckoo what it
is like to be a refugee. She defected from East Germany. I have another
friend that did the same from Poland. The Cold War didn't end that long
ago but we seem to have forgotten the lessons and the costs.
The story that made the most impact for me was from an actual "boat
person" from Vietnam. He was left for dead as a teenager. Somehow,
someone found him and managed to get him onto a boat to Australia. I
knew him as a uni student, and one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
9:30 a.m.
lev(a)levlafayette.com <lev(a)levlafayette.com> wrote:
One simple and effective tactic used by the Asylum
Seekers Resource Centre
(which entirely funded by donations and volunteers) is to simply introduce
people to actual refugees so people can hear their side of the story.
This indeed has the potential to be very effective. According to social
psychologists with whom I've discussed the issue, there is evidence that equal
status contact with members of a group toward which someone has prejudices is
one of the most effective means of reducing those prejudices.
25 Sep
25 Sep
11:37 p.m.
On 25/09/2011 2:59 PM, Tim Connors wrote:
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 "n 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.
If not, then who is selecting refugees Australia is taking in? And if it
is UNHCR why hasn't the USA taken as many Afghan refugees per capita as
we have? My reference is a Jenny Brockie story on the subject. The
comparison was 36,000 for the USA and 20,000 for Australia. Jenny
completely missed the 15:1 population ratio. God she's an idiot at times.
Now that's a mouthful! They need to tread a careful line between leading
and doing as they're told. Understanding their mandate etc. I couldn't
do it but I'd not put up with a government that ignored the people. As
for Berlusconi, hell, I have no idea what passes for politics in Italy
let alone what to make of one of their politicians.
Cheers,
Mike
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell wrote:
Yes, it is. ;-) However I have a lot of confidence in the joint national
political ability.
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
Politics in Australia is weird. I honestly don't
understand why the Greens dont get more votes.
For me, at least, they are a one trick pony - quick, hug a tree there's
an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking! Hah!
It should be fairly simple. It *should* be common
knowledge that more
than 90% of "boat people" eventually are found to be refugees.
I didn't think the number was that high. I suppose I should check somewhere.
Also, refuge
is a privilege not a right.
What? I'm pretty sure it's in the Geneva conventions or similar.
Ditto on the
humane treatment of refugees, but Australia should be
selecting who is and who is not a refugee. Until they are deemed to be
refugees they are here without visas.
No, that's not how the refugee convention works. The whole
problem of undocumented arrivals is very complex and will take
some time to resolve. However, it is the governments job to do as the
nation wishes.
I was kinda hoping that we elected leaders to lead. One some difficult
issues, they should lead public opinion instead of follow it. Put out
education campaigns. It would be nice if they could rely on the media to
do the right thing instead of doing the profitable thing.
At least we're not quite as bad as the Italian Berlusconi scenario.
11:51 p.m.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
http://greens.org.au/policies
Of course if you were to ever read their policies then you would discover that
they have policies on every conceivable topic. The above URL is prominently
linked from the main page of the Greens web site, it's not difficult to find.
Of course as you are going for straw-man attacks I'm sure you won't let facts
get in your way.
I honestly
don't
understand why the Greens dont get more votes.
For me, at least, they are a one trick pony - quick, hug a tree there's
an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking! Hah! Now that's a mouthful! They need to tread a
careful line between leading
and doing as they're told. Understanding their mandate etc. I couldn't
do it but I'd not put up with a government that ignored the people. As
for Berlusconi, hell, I have no idea what passes for politics in Italy
let alone what to make of one of their politicians.
The only requirement is that they push the party policies that were accepted
before the election. There is no such thing as a "mandate", this is something
that is just invented by politicians who win an election and want to do it
their way without cooperating. If you get 51% of the seats then there will be
situations where you have to negotiate with some of the people who are in the
other 49%. Telling the other 49% of representatives to shut up because of a
supposed "mandate" is not what democracy is about.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
26 Sep
26 Sep
1:10 a.m.
On 25/09/2011 11:51 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
http://greens.org.au/policies
Of course if you were to ever read their policies then you would discover that
they have policies on every conceivable topic. The above URL is prominently
linked from the main page of the Greens web site, it's not difficult to find.
Of course as you are going for straw-man attacks I'm sure you won't let facts
get in your way.
We will have to agree to disagree on the value of the Greens Russell. I
have said many, many times. Politics is *not* like football. You should
not continue to barrack for your team when they are down.
Please note, I was being flippant as a form of humour when using the
stereotypical view of the Greens.
Cheers,
Mike
I
honestly don't
understand why the Greens dont get more votes.
For me, at least, they are a one trick pony - quick, hug a tree there's
an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking! Hah!
7:48 a.m.
I think so much of the refugee story is hidden away from the public -
consider the recent claim by Leigh Sales that a detention centre in
Australia is harder to receive media access to than Guantanamo. This allows
for any amount of interpretation of facts, when there is not much evidence
available to counter them - and what is, isn't filtering through. Most
people have no idea about the lives of people claiming asylum (no matter how
they arrive on foreign shores), or the process that is undertaken by the
government in determining their claims. People are not getting this
information from the media they consume and so any claim can be made whether
true or false. I would urge people to at least attempt to educate themselves
about the reality before stating that people arriving are not refugees or
are somehow less worthy of asylum than others. Why not reread what others
here have posted and see if there's some ways of getting a better
understanding of the situation. I for one would like to investigate the
group that Lev has mentioned.
11:49 a.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 25/09/2011 11:51 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
http://greens.org.au/policies
Of course if you were to ever read their policies then you would discover
that they have policies on every conceivable topic. The above URL is
prominently linked from the main page of the Greens web site, it's not
difficult to find.
Of course as you are going for straw-man attacks I'm sure you won't let
facts get in your way.
We will have to agree to disagree on the value of the Greens Russell. I
have said many, many times. Politics is *not* like football. You should
not continue to barrack for your team when they are down. I
honestly don't
understand why the Greens dont get more votes.
For me, at least, they are a one trick pony - quick, hug a tree there's
an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking! Hah! Please note, I was being flippant as a form of humour
when using the
stereotypical view of the Greens.
That's no excuse for lying.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
12:16 p.m.
On 26/09/2011 11:49 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
The Greens have no defence policy on their website. It was not a lie.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Why not, you do?
Please note, I
was being flippant as a form of humour when using the
stereotypical view of the Greens.
That's no excuse for lying.
12:33 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
The Greens have no defence policy on their website. It was not a lie.
http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/peace-and-security
If the Greens had no policy in defense that wouldn't make them a "one trick
pony" as it's quite obvious that they have policies about many things other
than the environment. Now if you read the above URL you will see the Greens
policy on defense, basically it means avoiding aggressive warfare and making
UN based peace-keeping the last resort. You may disagree with it, but
claiming that they have no policy is a lie.
Below is the specific false claim that I objected to before. There is no
substance to that claim, it's a lie.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 11:49 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Juvenile. Please move beyong primary school debating.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Why not, you do? Please note, I was being flippant as a form of humour
when using the
stereotypical view of the Greens.
That's no excuse for lying. For me, at least, they are a one trick pony - quick,
hug a tree there's
an economic depression and enemy bombers are attacking! Hah!
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
9:23 a.m.
Quoting "Mike Mitchell" <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au>au>:
On 25/09/2011 2:59 PM, Tim Connors wrote:
> Politics in Australia is weird.
Yes, it is. ;-) However I have a lot of confidence in
the joint national
political ability.
If it comes to refugees, I doubt.
I am here since 2002, and the "boat people issue" does not go away,
and I haven't seen one moment of decency from the Labor and Liberal
frontbenchers in the debate.
It is a shame given they numbers are that tiny, and there are many
other challenges. It nearly sounds like an excuse not do deal with them.
I am so over it. I am for the Malaysian swap: 10 refugees for Tony and Julia.
Regards
Peter
25 Sep
25 Sep
4:14 p.m.
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
I thought their official position was that they alone could maintain aircraft
to the highest standards, so that any out-sourcing whatsoever would
necessarily jeopardize safety. It's a convenient view for them to hold, of
course.
As to whether Labor or the Coalision attracts more xenophobic voters, I'll
leave it for survey results, if there are any, to establish.
According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly xenophobic.
A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by
the Coalition - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last
election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to
this issue.
I'm not so sure that the Coalition attracts a more xenophobic follower
than the ALP. Traditionally, including the Howard government, the
Coalition, and its conservative predecessor, have adopted a more liberal
approach to immigration. Although the driving force has not always been
altruistic. A _terrific_ example of almost ALP xenophobia going on at
the moment is the Qantas engineers industrial action. They have not said
a word about the Qantas aircraft being maintained by Americans and
British maintenance staff at other destinations but those "strange"
Asian types!? I think they'd like to kill 'em.
6:41 p.m.
On 25/09/2011 4:14 PM, Jason White wrote:
As to whether Labor or the Coalision attracts more
xenophobic voters, I'll
leave it for survey results, if there are any, to establish.
I left out a bit there. Most people seem to forget it was John Howard
who introduced large scale African migration and there is a reasonably
accurate entry in the Wikipedia comparing conservative to Labour
governments but I have not been able to find it again. If anyone knows
the item I'd like to have a link.
Cheers,
Mike
9:28 p.m.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
Well we can start by treating people humanely while determining if they are
refugees. Make the "innocent until proven guilty" principle apply.
Most people who are here without visas are treated humanely. All the people
who attended the Catholic World Youth Day and didn't go home were here without
visas and didn't get treated badly.
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_howard
It's worth reading John Howard's Wikipedia page. The first thing that stands
out is his action to restrict gun ownership. It was controversial at the time
but a significant majority of the population accepted that he did the right
thing. Other politicians could take a lesson from this in regard to doing the
right thing and then doing politics - it's a lesson that John forgot later in
his term.
Remember the "babies overboard" lies by John Howard? Hardly a
"liberal"
approach to immigration.
According
to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly
xenophobic. A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can
be exploited by the Coalition - these include people who voted for the
ALP in the last election but who could switch their votes partly or
entirely in response to this issue.
I'm not so sure that the Coalition attracts a more xenophobic follower
than the ALP. Traditionally, including the Howard government, the
Coalition, and its conservative predecessor, have adopted a more liberal
approach to immigration. Although the driving force has not always been
altruistic. A _terrific_ example of almost ALP xenophobia going on at
the moment is the Qantas engineers industrial action. They have not said
a word about the Qantas aircraft being maintained by Americans and
British maintenance staff at other destinations but those "strange"
Asian types!? I think they'd like to kill 'em.
NOTE: I've worked for, Australian Air Express, a Qantas subsidiary and
they really don't like anything to do with Singapore or its Airline.
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.
Then there is
another small proportion (10%?) who favour more
humane treatment of refugees
I really believe that almost all Australians support the humane
treatment of refugees _BUT_ how on earth do we know that the people who
arrive here under their own steam _ARE_ refugees?! 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.
To be totally
clear on this point, I am strongly in favour of the rights
of refugees and asylum seekers and opposed to any policy that would
diminish those rights or exacerbate the suffering of people who are
already vulnerable and who have lived with the experience, or at least
the well-founded fear of persecution. I do not support either off-shore
processing of claims or mandatory detention; and I don't vote for the
Labor Party either.
Ditto on the humane treatment of refugees, but Australia should be
selecting who is and who is not a refuge. Until they are deemed to be
refugees they are here without visas. I believe we need to deter those taking advantage of
Australia when they
are without need of refuge.
I did vote Labor in the last election, and I'd like to take this
opportunity to apologise.
You voted for the lesser of two evils. Voting for the Greens is the best
thing to do, vote for good!
And as most proponents of "let 'em all
in" seem to think that those who
aren't are racist bastards, I strongly believe that immigration is vital
to this country and I believe offering refuge on compassionate grounds
is vital to our humanity and moral fibre.
Which is of course a good argument for an "innovent until proven guilty"
approach.
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".
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one significant example of controversial
legislation passed without a referendum. That act resulted in the "half time
change sides" in US politics where the Republican party is now the party of
racism and the Democratic party is the liberal party (or rather the not so
right-wing party).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Willem_de_Klerk
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
believes that he would have won an election with only white voters on a
platform of enfranchising the majority of the population.
Having a representative Democracy and allowing politicians some freedom to
vote with their conscience after elected has real benefits.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
26 Sep
26 Sep
12:30 a.m.
On 25/09/2011 9:28 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
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."
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.
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).
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.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)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. 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".
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. 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 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
11:39 a.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
Not a screw-up, just a politician lying.
The problem is that the only reason for processing them overseas is to permit
treating them worse than could be done in Australia.
The Malaysian government deserves no respect for anything related to human
rights.
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."
Sure there are other countries acting in an inhumane manner, that is no excuse
for Australia to do the same.
His election as VP after Black South Africans were allowed to vote indicates
that the majority of the ZA population were happy with what he did. But that
doesn't mean he had an electoral mandate.
If politicians were to act on the basis of any sane economical analysis we
would have a lot of renewable energy already and no uranium mines.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
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 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. 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.
There are problems with inequality in Australia and many Australian citizens
are not being treated well. That is a problem that needs to be fixed not an
excuse for treating immigrants badly.
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.
11:50 a.m.
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent.
That is NOT the point I made. Refuge is a privilege not a right.
If politicians were to act on the basis of any sane economical analysis we
would have a lot of renewable energy already and no uranium mines.
This only represents YOUR view of _sane_. This nation has higher levels
of tolerance than that.
Cheers,
Mike
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
Not a screw-up, just a politician lying.
I suspect the Admiral lied.
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.
The problem is that the only reason for processing them overseas is to permit
treating them worse than could be done in Australia. 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."
Sure there are other countries acting in an inhumane manner, that is no excuse
for Australia to do the same. There are problems with inequality in Australia and
many Australian citizens
are not being treated well. That is a problem that needs to be fixed not an
excuse for treating immigrants badly.
Again, NOT the point!! We need an holistic answer.
His election as VP after Black South Africans were
allowed to vote indicates
that the majority of the ZA population were happy with what he did. But that
doesn't mean he had an electoral mandate.
On what planet?
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.
12:07 p.m.
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
But if the processing procedure were as just and afforded the same legal
rights as that available in Australia, with the same guarantee of
resettlement, then it wouldn't function as a deterrent. Put differently,
off-shore processing is only a deterrent (in so far as it works as one) to the
extent that it offers less protection to the rights of refugees.
I leave aside the question of whether there ought to be a deterrent in this
case - I would argue that there should not be.
The problem is that the only reason for
processing them overseas is to permit
treating them worse than could be done in Australia.
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent. That is NOT the point I made. Refuge is a privilege
not a right.
No, quite the opposite - it is a right under international law, and there are
solid moral grounds for its being so.
12:30 p.m.
On 26/09/2011 12:07 PM, Jason White wrote:
I agree that there are moral grounds for it but international law does
not have jurisdiction across the the planet. And countries that have
accept that law can change their mind on a whim. If you and I needed
refuge in China, we'd be hard pressed to get it. Hmm, okay, I might but
that's only because my wife was born there. Where are you going, the
USA? ;-)
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
I think the rules need to be applied strictly and enforced quickly. If
the applicants are not genuine hardship then send them back almost the
same day. This nation should be allowed to choose its own migrants. Even
those migrants seeking refuge. Then, even if they are legitimate
refugees, they need to be of good character before
Remember the Sri Lankan spokesman on the customs ship? He was wanted in
Canada for immigration offences. Why the hell did he need refuge here if
he'd been in Canada? He should be gaoled here then extradited to Canada
to be dealt with. Granted, that's an extreme case.
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
But if the processing procedure were as just and afforded the same legal
rights as that available in Australia, with the same guarantee of
resettlement, then it wouldn't function as a deterrent. Put differently,
off-shore processing is only a deterrent (in so far as it works as one) to the
extent that it offers less protection to the rights of refugees. The problem is that the only reason for
processing them overseas is to permit
treating them worse than could be done in Australia.
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent. I leave aside the question of whether there ought to
be a deterrent in this
case - I would argue that there should not be.
How then would stop the process being abused?
That is NOT
the point I made. Refuge is a privilege not a right.
No, quite the opposite - it is a right under international law, and there are
solid moral grounds for its being so.
1:13 p.m.
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
By denying claims that are determined not to be well-founded, and by
recognizing that in any administrative system there'll be a small proportion
of applicants who try to abuse the process.
I agree that there are moral grounds for it but international law
does not have jurisdiction across the the planet. And countries that
have accept that law can change their mind on a whim.
There is a difference between having a right, on the one hand, and states'
acknowledging the right on the other. If there were no difference, there would
not be states that systematically and as a matter of policy violate human rights. Thus the
fact that some states opt not to acknowledge the rights of refugees is irrelevant to
whether such rights exist.
I think the rules need to be applied strictly and
enforced quickly.
If the applicants are not genuine hardship then send them back
almost the same day. This nation should be allowed to choose its own
migrants. Even those migrants seeking refuge. Then, even if they are
legitimate refugees, they need to be of good character before
The above reflects a misunderstanding of the processes involved in
determining refugee claims - the in-depth interviews, the checking and
cross-checking of claims, etc. I strongly suspect that it can't be done quicly and
fairly - either is possible, but not both.
Then there needs to be oversight to ensure that the law is applied
correctly, which can itself take time.
I leave aside
the question of whether there ought to be a deterrent in this
case - I would argue that there should not be.
How then would stop the process being abused? That is
NOT the point I made. Refuge is a privilege not a right.
No, quite the opposite - it is a right under international law, and there are
solid moral grounds for its being so.
2:12 p.m.
Quoting "Mike Mitchell" <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au>au>:
I agree that there are moral grounds for it but
international law does
not have jurisdiction across the the planet. And countries that have
accept that law can change their mind on a whim.
BTW: I still consider the European Union (despite Euro woes) as a
success story. Started as an economical union by seven states, after a
terrible war, it is now such a magnet that nearly all European
countries are part of it and others still aspire to be part of.
It is a showcase of real globalization that isn't confined to economy
only, spreads prosperity, gives people the right and means to move
freely etc.
Australia is such a magnet as well. But it does not have the
initiative to kickstart promising developments beyond its shores yet.
I am not competent to judge the Australian interventions in the
neighbouring countries. But none of the countries up North is a
success story, I think. Maybe because they are concentrating on mining
interests first..
Prospering and democratic neighbours are the best "deterrent" to avoid
the country being "overrun" (as many seem to fear here).
It hasn't happen to the European countries yet, despite the open borders.
As we speak, a few kilometers North or South decides about life and
death of Children that die on easily preventable diseases.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/dying-on-australias-doorstep-20110908-1jzpm.…
Regards
Peter
12:16 p.m.
Quoting "Mike Mitchell" <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au>au>:
That is NOT the point I made. Refuge is a privilege
not a right.
Australia signed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. By
doing so, we do not give refuge as a privilege, the convention comes
with obligations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
---- snip ----
Responsibilities of States Parties to the Refugee Convention
In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith.
Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to
protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its
terms.[6]
There are a number of provisions that States who are parties of the
Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol must adhere to. Among them are:
Cooperation With the UNHCR: Under Article 35 of the Refugee Convention
and Article II of the 1967 Protocol, states agree to cooperate with
UNHCR in the exercise of its functions and to help UNHCR supervise the
implementation of the provisions in the Convention.[6]
Information On National Legislation: parties to the Convention agree
to inform the United Nations Secretary-General about the laws and
regulations they may adopt to ensure the application of the
Convention.[6]
Exemption from Reciprocity: The notion of reciprocity- where,
according to a country's law, the granting of a right to an alien is
subject to the granting of similar treatment by the alien's country of
nationality- does not apply to refugees. This notion does not apply to
refugees because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home
state.[6]
---- snip ----
None of the two big parties "cooperate with the UNHCR" at the moment.
The UNHCR raises concerns frequently, and none of the proposed
solutions will end that because all are based on mandatory detention.
Here one example:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4df1…
----
UNHCR steps up Australia refugee criticism
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 09/06/2011
The United Nations stepped up criticism of Australia's refugee
detention policy Friday, warning there was "no empirical evidence"
that locking up asylum seekers deterred irregular migration.
----
Only few countries, world wide, implement mandatory detention.
It is a ridle why there is so much fuss about refuges in a country
that is far away from the rest of the world, isn't a main destination
of refugee movements and has plenty of room and material wealth to
deal with a few thousand people arriving at its shores.
Someone must be on drugs to believe that this is a major issue so both
major parties rely on its "solution" to win elections.
Regards
Peter
12:20 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent.
You are advocating illegal measures to deter people from seeking to have their
human rights protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Willem_de_Klerk
No ZA politician would have been elected on a platform of ending Apartheid.
de Klerk was elected as a "conservative" politician and then later became
"enlightened" and after taking power after P.W. Botha resigned due to health
reasons he took over as president. de Klerk didn't run a presidential
election campaign for ANYTHING, so he didn't have an electoral mandate.
If politicians were to act on the basis of any sane economical analysis
we would have a lot of renewable energy already and no uranium mines.
This only represents YOUR view of _sane_. This nation has higher levels
of tolerance than that.
If you add up the costs of cleaning up after mining operations then almost no
modern mining operations are profitable for the state. The tax revenues from
mining don't come close to the clean-up costs.
While conservatives are usually happy to leave pollution in the environment
(often becuase they believe that Jesus will return before it becomes a
problem) that attitude doesn't work well for uranium mines.
Tolerance isn't something that matters to an economical analysis. It's just a
matter of money. Mines are barely profitable for mining companies that don't
have to clean up their mess.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
What, everyone around John Howard was lying and he was the lone beacon of
truth? :-#
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike
Mitchell<m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote:
Not a screw-up, just a politician lying.
I suspect the Admiral lied. 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.
The problem is that the only reason for processing them overseas is to
permit treating them worse than could be done in Australia. His election
as VP after Black South Africans were allowed to vote
indicates that the majority of the ZA population were happy with what he
did. But that doesn't mean he had an electoral mandate.
On what planet? 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. 
25 Sep
25 Sep
9:56 p.m.
On 25/09/11 13:25, Mike Mitchell wrote:
I really believe that almost all Australians support
the humane
treatment of refugees _BUT_ how on earth do we know that the people who
arrive here under their own steam _ARE_ refugees?! Also, refuge is a
privilege not a right. We need to think in terms of ourselves seeking
refuge outside Australia to understand that.
Australia gets only a tiny proportion of our immigration (or even our refugees)
from boats and the vast majority of people who arrive here "under their own
steam", in this way, are determined by our Department of Immigration to be
legitimate refugees (90% or so). There is no queue. I understand the moral
objection to people smugglers but they're attempting to offer a service that
desperate people are begging to have. Shunting people who have attempted to get
here by whatever means possible, into off shore processing (and indefinite
detention) is not humane under any interpretation of that word. It also doesn't
break the people smuggler's model, because - unless they know how bad the
conditions are in detention - people will still pay for an attempt to get to
Australia. Not merely because they want to be selective, but because they want
to be recognised as refugees, and given legal citizenship and protection, and
neither Malaysia or Indonesia (which is where our boat people originate) are
signatories to the UN Refugee Convention. I am sure that Australia's
multiculturalism also helps them feel confident they can find a home and
acceptance here. I realise that, given a calm and safe situation, when asked
what country a refugee might prefer to end up in, many might say Australia. But
people who argue that the refugees are coming specifically to Australia to
impose on our good way of life, etc, are ignoring the fact that - in most cases
- the refugees would probably take any option that granted them legal refugee
status, citizenship and protection.
Freedom from persecution is a right, so, correspondingly, refuge is a right.
Australia has recognised the rights of refugees and their right to seek refuge.
Yet, being relatively isolated from the rest of the world, Australia takes in
only a teeny tiny percentage of refugees compared to other countries with
similar socio-economic statuses (but which are less isolated).
The bulk of our "illegal immigration" comes from people who fly here (with visas
and passports!) and then overstay their visas.
The Australian government is having a hard time running the Christmas Island
detention center well. Refugees, are - strangely enough - often quite
traumatised with a wide range of mental illnesses. We shouldn't treat them as
prisoners, as they haven't committed a crime (attempting to reach Australia by
boat without a visa to claim refugee status is not a crime). Yet, we want them
detained. There is not sufficient training for the guards in how to handle
people with mental illnesses, and not enough psychs to help them. The biggest
problem is despair because those who are being detained do not know how long
they're being detained for, and what the end result will be (at least prisoners
get told that up front). This isn't humane. Even if they were living in a 5
star resort (which they're not) with pools, activities, etc etc, being stuck
there, and not knowing for how long, another year? another 10 years? and whether
or not at the end of it they'll be sent back to their originating country....
that would make the resort pall pretty quickly.
I say pick one of two measures. Provide a definite, guaranteed, cannot be
gotten around, hard limit on offshore detention. Something sensible, for
example no longer than 6 months. Then either bring them onshore for whatever
processing is left, or send them home. If they're detained onshore, have the
Department of Immigration have to have approval for further detention than 6
months; then move them into the community. None of this detention for years and
years with no idea of what's going on. None of this losing people and
forgetting about them.
J
26 Sep
26 Sep
12:52 a.m.
On 25/09/2011 9:56 PM, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
Freedom from persecution is a right, so, correspondingly, refuge is a right.
Australia has recognised the rights of refugees and their right to seek refuge.
Yet, being relatively isolated from the rest of the world, Australia takes in
only a teeny tiny percentage of refugees compared to other countries with
similar socio-economic statuses (but which are less isolated).
I think I covered the first part by saying we need to look at refugees
from the other direction. If it were you and I looking, we have no right
to refuge in any other country if Australia was a failed nation.
The bulk of our "illegal immigration" comes
from people who fly here (with visas
and passports!) and then overstay their visas.
If we treated "boat people" the same way we tread those who arrive here
by plane they would be put on the next available transport back to where
they came from. Fortunately because they have passports we know who they
are and because they have visas we know they stand a reasonable chance
of being of good character. When they arrive by boat without papers none
of that is known and we are not sure where they really come from.
These new "boat people" should not be confused with those from Vietnam
who had almost nowhere else to go. Why don't the current "boat people"
stop about 30 countries earlier and try to get access to the UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait or even Turkey. These are great places with a terrific
economies, reasonable freedoms, safe, good quality of life and great
Muslim cultures in place? Why do they spend $25K each with a people
smuggler rather than $1K each on a plane ticket? Why don't they stop at
an Australian Embassy on the way and ask for refuge?
We shouldn't treat them as
prisoners, as they haven't committed a crime (attempting to reach Australia by
boat without a visa to claim refugee status is not a crime). Yet, we want them
detained.
Detention is not gaol. It's no where near as restricted.
There is not sufficient training for the guards in how
to handle
people with mental illnesses,
The guards don't seem to have nearly enough training period!
I say pick one of two measures. Provide a definite,
guaranteed, cannot be
gotten around, hard limit on offshore detention. Something sensible, for
example no longer than 6 months.
I'm not sure. I think it takes longer than six months to determine their
nation of origin when they have no papers. At least it's a place to
start to consider what the maximum detention time is. I wonder if I can
get my old mum into a detention centre in Fiji as I want to be in Nauru
for my retirement. Hmm, maybe Vanuatu, the scuba diving is better there
and I don't want to be anywhere near my mum. (See my post to Russell's
post for the connection ;-).
Cheers,
Mike
4203
days inactive
4205
days old
41 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Brent Wallis -
Edward Gilbert -
Jacinta Richardson -
Jason White -
lev＠levlafayette.com -
Mike Mitchell -
Peter Ross -
Pidgorny, Slav -
Russell Coker -
Tim Connors -
Tim Connors -
Tony Langdon