Thread: Waking up Australia to compassion.

Originally Posted by SteveFarmer

Hi

I certainly am reading this thread and your post illustrates my point perfectly "a fair go for all except if you are [insert what you like here]"
I am unemployed. I would like to immigrate to Japan for a better life. Sadly, they will only ship me back home. If I did manage to become a citizen, I would never be allowed to own my own home. There are many, many countries in this world who would not accept me as an economic migrant. Why should Australia be any different?

It is my feeling that the economic migrants are a small minority, but of course there is no way we can verify this. Can you provide any evidence reading the numbers of "economic migrants", a rough percentage perhaps?
Sadly, your feelings are not facts. What I have been told third hand is also not fact but my mate who worked on Christmas Island told me genuine refugees there were processed reasonably quickly and were resettled in Australia. Those who are determined to not be refugees (economic migrants) and those whose identities are not confirmed ( the uncooperative trouble makers who are very probably not refugees) are the ones still in detention, have been for some time and will probably continue to be for some time. As to the percentage, I think it is a moot point as genuine refugees are processed in a timely manner.

A few standard gems came up in this discussion such as "send them back where they came or to the nearest refugee camp". Like the afghan who was sent back to Afghanistan and and killed by the Taliban. This was a documented case but we can be sure there are many more cases we don't know about. Fair go? Not in my view.
Where exactly is the Sri Lankan refugee camp?
The UNHCR convention of which we are signatories have rules and procedures we follow. One of these rules (Article 31) is we cannot expel a refugee if they acted in good faith. "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1))"
The Afghani refugees, in order to get to Indonesia, have passed through other states that are signatories to the convention and have not presented themselves without delay to the authorities of those states. If they had, those states would be dealing with them as refugees. They (the alleged refugees) have not shown good faith by avoiding those authorities and paying lots of money to Indonesian smugglers to get them into Australia. In my opinion, these people are not as described in article 31 so therefore they should be deported immediately. Luckily for them, I'm not in charge so they get processed off shore and a lot are let into the country
The odd anomaly is not representative of the whole. A copper made a mistake one day and booked me for driving an unregistered vehicle when it was. Does that make all coppers nasty belligerent arse holes who don't know their job? I think not.

Or separating a mother from her newborn baby, how is that a fair go?

Locking people like cattle up in circumstances where large numbers of them are driven to self harm and attempt suicide, how is that a fair go?
True refugees aren't locked up for long. Refer my earlier comment.
If they don't like it, they can alwasy go back as many have done.

Sending women and children to a country with one of the highest rates of rape and violence against women.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I get the idea. You have not been exposed to the same people relating their experiences I have.

I was drawing a parallel with convicts because in many ways the situation is the same. Desperate people do things even though they know the potential penalties, such as transportation. The vast majority of convicts knew what would happen to them if they were caught, but they committed the crime anyway, out of desperation.
The situation is completely different in different times with different moral values.

Oh and by the way, no one got transportation for life for stealing a loaf of bread, seven years was the standard sentence for that level of crime.
So, everyone went back home after seven years then?

Steve

...

Originally Posted by CraigE

Steve,
You need to read up a bit more on Australian history especially that around the first fleet and subsequent transport of convicts to the new colony. As transport to the Americas was no longer viable, it was decided to set up a penal colony in Australia in what was to become Sydney, then Norfolk Island, followed by Tasmania (to stop Tasmania or Van Diemens land as what it was known from being settled by the French). Many many of these convicts were transported for what we would call a very minor offence. Many of these were sent out for stealing food and it is widely documented a lot of these were for stealing bread others for meat, rabbits, clothing, buttons, disobedience to their land holder or many other serious crimes as well. You should read up a bit. The sentence may not have been life but once transported to either the Americas or to New South Wales or Van Diemens land was effectively a life sentence as they would have no way of returning to Britain. Very few infact were able to return. Then on top of that a fairly large percentage either died due to harsh conditions in Australia, in ship wreck or with the exception of the first fleet (which had a small mortality rate) the following fleets could have up to a 50% mortality rate during transport. So effectively a lot of these people received a death sentence for minor offences. Then there was the sexual abuse of female prisoners on board the ships. So dont try to say 7 years was a fair sentence for stealing a loaf of bread.

As for quoting a Nielsen poll, what a joke. These polls are only ever eastern sea board capital city based and the people conducting these will target specific demographics so to pull out figures as in all surveys generally a joke unless it encompasses a wide demographic which they usually do not. Often these surveys are limited to less than 1000 people and more often it is only people that have an agenda that take these surveys as generally if they ring up it is at dinner time. Statistics are a wonderful thing and can be slanted and massaged to represent any view. Unless their is a fairly large survey the results are irrelevent.

You start talking misinformation, talk candidly to people that are involved in this area and you will get some different information as they generally cannot talk publicly due to secrecy components of their contracts.
As I have said it is generally not about these people proving refugee status it is more that no one can prove any different as there is no way of determining who these people are as they deliberately dispose of all identification papers after leaving Indonesia and this is well documented. Anyone can just say "If I return home I will be killed as will my family" etc etc. Trying to verify or refute this is often impossible. If they were true refugees they would keep and present their identification papers to prove their status. On the occasion boats have been found with people with ID papers a big % of these were proven not to be true refugees and returned, hence why they destroy them.

As I have repeatedly said I do not believe the majority of these people currently coming in by boat are true refugees under the real definition.
And again I have no problem taking real refugees, not these people that take a short cut that they can afford, where as a real refugee cannot.

Hi

Given that I have around 10 convicts in my family tree and a couple who cam on the second fleet, I think I am on pretty solid gorund here. I have read "1788" by Watkin Tench, Britains Grim Armada by Michael Flynn, John Nichols Autobiography amongst others. I have also spent countless hours in the State Records reading room and the Mitchell Library, I have even done resrearch at the PRO in Kew. IN additoon I have read many many emails and had discussions on the "convicts to Australia" mailing list.

I think referring to the Neilsen poll is a valid indicator. Can you provide some evidence for your assertions regarding their poling demographic?

Well the moist recent first hand account id the one in the original post, and that speaks for itself.

What you believe about the refugees is probably about as close to reality as what I believe, the truth is neither of us have any real idea what is going on.

A start to a "fair go" would be an open and transparent process, where the asylum seekers get access to legal representation and the Australian people can see for themselves what the story is.

Steve

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Disagree.
"A fair Go To All"?...Who is "ALL"?....Is paying someone big dollars to illegally try to gain entry a "Fair Go" to those in the camps?...I don't think so.
Comparing Schindler & the Nazis to the situation in question is simply ridiculous, as is mentioning a "fascist state".
"Steal a loaf of bread so they could eat"?, well the people on the boats must have stolen quite a few, by the look of them.
And why bring "Tom" into this discussion?.....His opinion, right or wrong, is no more important than yours or mine.
If you think letting people into our Country illegally, with no ID (and it's their fault, they are the ones destroying their ID), is the way to go, I disagree.
I agree that we are not handling the situation very well, but the overwhelming majority of Aussies want US to say who comes to our Country.
Pickles.

Hi

Schindler was a people smuggler, and as Les Murray said, so was the guy who smuggled him and his family out of Hungary when the Russians sent in the tanks. Pretty simple really.

As for the use of the word Fascist, I make no apologies, perhaps Autocratic or Authoritarian is a better term to use for the information suppression which successive governments from all sides have increasing used in this area. Whatever term you use, it is hardly supposed to be a feature of an advanced western democracy. In my opion that way lies the slippery slope away from democracy.

I never said I was in favour of open slather, what I am in favour of is a open and transparent system which is fair to all.

One option would be to provide more resources to the UNHCR in the source countries, but of course sadly we have just done the opposite.

This is a complex issue with no simple solutions but cruelty to individuals is not the way to deal with it as far as I am concerned

Steve

Originally Posted by steane

What piffle. Come down from your ivory tower and take a look at the average Aussie and what they have given financially and of themselves to assist in times of need both at home and abroad, over and over and over again.

And keep giving every day to help new Australians find their place here.

This anti-Australian sentiment that a section of our own community fosters is outrageous. I'd gladly trade them all for refugees.

Maybe that's the answer! We'll swap refugees for anti-aussies

How soon can you pack?

Hi

Ad-Hominem attacks are one of the reasons I usually avoid topics such as this.

As an Australian who can trace his ancestry back to the second fleet (of boat people) I take great umbrage at the suggestion I am anti-Australian.

As for giving back to the community, I am a Queens Scout, Surf Lifesaving Bronze medallion holder and have spent plenty of time patrolling beaches and fighting fires in the RFS.

I do not see it is anti-Australian to be ****ed off that we treat people, any people, desperate or not, geniune refugee or not, with such cruelty and lack of humanity.

Steve

Originally Posted by steane

DO NOT label people racists and bigots for simply having an opinion. That is what you did and in the vast majority of cases you are wrong and just showing your ignorance. That sort of behavior is what makes sensible conversation about a topic like this almost impossible.

Does tossing those labels around amongst your fellow countrymen who are showing concern for the future of their country make you unpatriotic? I'll leave you to consider that one.

Great to hear you are donating your time. Have you thought about opening your house to a refugee family? Maybe you already have? That would be one less family that won't be shipped somewhere that doesn't meet with your approval. Perhaps you can let us know how you get on with that? Leading by example is a powerful thing.

I don't see many people simply dismissing boat people in this thread as if they don't matter or are of little consequence. There are plenty of opinions on what does and doesn't work and what is and isn't good for our country, but most are reasonable and don't require an emotive reaction like yours.

Have a think about this country, what it has to offer and how many we can offer it to before we start to go backwards at a rate of knots. It might be a big island, but the vast majority of it is uninhabitable. We are in the process of moving from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, so we (just in the next few years) will see (as one example) Holden and Toyota ceasing manufacturing. This will happen. That's 30,000+ jobs lost.

You got a plan for those 30,000 families and how they'll survive, or are they just racists and bigots and not worthy of your care and attention? They'll be lost at sea in their own way in the next few years.

There is so much more to this than you have obviously ever considered, and considering it is what every real Australian that cares anything about their country should be doing. Both sides of the argument need diligent consideration not just the side that eases your mind and soothes your heart right now.

Stean,

Firstly I am not labelling all racists, bigots etc. At no stage did I direct that title to you. I said that I was alarmed at the amount of racist language and lack of compassion shown by many AULRO members. If you choose to include yourself in that group that's up to you.

Secondly, why do i have to prove my convictions in the extreme if they differ to yours. That would be as ridiculous me saying "As you said you love and want to protect your family I assume you have chosen to become a federal politician so you can make a difference, and are a high ranking member of the military and ...." Just because I believe that we should treat people fairly does not mean I dismiss others opinions. Where others opinions are clearly racist I am morally bound to argue the opposite.

I agree that many people are putting their points across well but there are many who don't show compassion, are obviously scared and racist. I don't see why you think I should have all the answers. I don't. I believe that just simply trying to solve the boat people issue is a bandaid solution as I have stated a number of times on this thread. Again, if you choose only to read sections of my posts, call me unpatriotic and say that I slander all, that is your prerogative and interpretation.

Your sweeping statements such as "There is so much more to this than you have obviously ever considered" are the problem here. You have no idea about me or what I have considered and you keep drawing conclusions based on your interpretation of what I have written.

Apologies to those that may have found my comments about racism and bigotry confronting but I find both in comments throughout this thread. Again, that's my interpretation.

We need to look at solving the underlying issues, not focus on people turning up here by boat. And personally attacking people that don't have a parallel opinion to yours is not going to solve a damn thing.

And we ain't gonna solve it all on a car forum.

Laters.

A Just Australia
And
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/doc...ers%202010.pdf
And it's a bit old now but still holds up:
http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/int...um_seekers.pdf

Originally Posted by SteveFarmer

There is some hope however, the latest Neilsen poll indicates that around 57% are unhappy with our attitude to Refugees.

Just been re-reading this thread. I missed this delightful statistic.
I'm not sure you realise but, there was an election here recently. Guess which party won? That's right, the one with the "Turn back the boats" policy.
What does the Neilsen poll (if it is correct) tell me? The government are going to collect a lot of fines from people who didn't vote.
What do the politicians constantly remind us? The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

Oh, and my take on the article referred to in the first post, the author was publishing under a pseudonym. We cannot confirm whether the story is factual or a complete work of fiction, like, The Guardian hasn't published fictional articles before.

Hi

Well guys it has been a barrel of laughs, but as the tone of this discussion continues to get lower and sillier, and I find myself needing to use my sarcasm filter pretty often, I see little benefit in continuing to go around in circles.

Steve