Woomera [Archive]

evade28

27 Jan 2002, 20:05

look at what they have got at woomera, foxtel, swimming pools, SAFETY etc. no, they dont have freedom but thats what happens when you enter OUR country illegally.
they definately shouldnt be let out while they continue to make trouble and not respect our laws. theyre ungrateful i reckon, theyre not paying for anything, taxpayers pay for their food and clothing, medical bills etc, they carry on like theyre not getting a fair deal.
when theres homeless australians on the streets, what is the governments priority? their own people arent coming first are they. maybe the derelicts should go out into the bloody sea over in WA put on one of those hat things, a shawl is it? and pretend theyre from afghanistan and get food and everything basically luxury compared to what theyre use to.
its bullsh1t this, what would anyone with half a brain prefer, to wait for their visas to be processed, or live in a cave in afghanistan or somewhere waiting for a bomb to be dropped on you or step on a bloody land mine or something?

waiting for your visa to be processed is the price you pay when you enter this country ILLEGALLY.

and another thing, how dare they whinge, if they dont like it they can f*ck off back 2 wherever they came from.
if the government backs down and lets them out then theres gonna be a ****in flock of them coming over.

also most of them ARENT refugees bcos they came via pakistan, which is deemed a safe country, therefore they cant pick the cherries out and say 'ohhh no, we're not staying here when we can go somewhere good like australia' theyre not refugees, so hopefully they will be going back.

and if theyre 'legit' refugees (which the majority arent) then why do they throw away their passports? how are we supposed to know theyre not bloody criminals or terroists???

i reckon they should just piss em off back to their own country straight away, they would soon learn to stop bothering to waste their money coming here if they go straight back.

Bomber Spirit

27 Jan 2002, 20:44

Unless you were to surgically implant microchips, mandatory detention has to happen. Otherwise, if their refugee claim is rejected, how are you going to find them to deport them?
But if they had their paperwork with them and their stories were correct, they shouldn't be in detention very long. But when applications are rejected, they should be sent home quickly - otherwise if they wait in limbo they're more likely to make trouble.

joffa_pies4ever

27 Jan 2002, 23:03

Originally posted by evade28
look at what they have got at woomera, foxtel, swimming pools, SAFETY etc. no, they dont have freedom but thats what happens when you enter OUR country illegally.
they definately shouldnt be let out while they continue to make trouble and not respect our laws. theyre ungrateful i reckon, theyre not paying for anything, taxpayers pay for their food and clothing, medical bills etc, they carry on like theyre not getting a fair deal.
when theres homeless australians on the streets, what is the governments priority? their own people arent coming first are they. maybe the derelicts should go out into the bloody sea over in WA put on one of those hat things, a shawl is it? and pretend theyre from afghanistan and get food and everything basically luxury compared to what theyre use to.
its bullsh1t this, what would anyone with half a brain prefer, to wait for their visas to be processed, or live in a cave in afghanistan or somewhere waiting for a bomb to be dropped on you or step on a bloody land mine or something?

waiting for your visa to be processed is the price you pay when you enter this country ILLEGALLY.

and another thing, how dare they whinge, if they dont like it they can f*ck off back 2 wherever they came from.
if the government backs down and lets them out then theres gonna be a ****in flock of them coming over.

also most of them ARENT refugees bcos they came via pakistan, which is deemed a safe country, therefore they cant pick the cherries out and say 'ohhh no, we're not staying here when we can go somewhere good like australia' theyre not refugees, so hopefully they will be going back.

and if theyre 'legit' refugees (which the majority arent) then why do they throw away their passports? how are we supposed to know theyre not bloody criminals or terroists???

i reckon they should just piss em off back to their own country straight away, they would soon learn to stop bothering to waste their money coming here if they go straight back.

Your must be a very sad and insecure and unloving person but you know what is sadder ?

A lot of your so called fellow orstralians will agree with you..gee we are self destructing in a big way!!

Bomber Spirit

27 Jan 2002, 23:19

Originally posted by joffa_pies4ever
A lot of your so called fellow orstralians will agree with you..gee we are self destructing in a big way!!
Is there a viable alternative? The only one I can think of would be to surgically implant microchips - but that would be even less palatable than mandatory detention.

wagstaff

28 Jan 2002, 00:24

Not surprisingly, this thread has only had a few responses to it and already the standard anti-boat people statements have come to the surface

Firstly, there's the oft-stated argument that money is being wasted on these boat people should be spent on Australia's problems in health, education etc..... Guess what, the government has no interest in solving these social problems because they are controlled by big business who want the government to deal with its concerns (like making it easier to employ cheap labour and making Australia "internationally competitve"). The government is just using this issue to channel the general population's frustrations at the deterioating state of society away from themselves and major corporations to an easy scapegoat like the boat people.
Anyone who thinks that the government would give a damn about helping the homeless or the less well-off in society if the boat people were sent back home has got crap for brains.

Secondly, there is the argument that these people should wait in the 'queue' and become genuinue refugees. The refugee system has greatly changed in the last decade, with the refugee influx increasingly becoming business orientated, and the highly skilled given preference for the direct needs of business over those who coming here because they are being persecuted in their homeland and/or aren't highly skilled.

While it's true that people buy their way into this country, you won't find them coming here by a leaky boat. For example, if a person has business assets worth over $300 000, they qualify for resident status on the grounds of "business skills".

Then there's the issue of refugees living in 'luxury' claims in newspapers like the Herald Sun. One wonders how seriously these claims can be taken, as the government has virtually barred the press or anyone from accessing sites like Wommera and seeing what the conditions are really like. Instead, the general public relies on most of its information from Phillip Ruddock, who unsurprisingly makes every effort to put as bad a light on the refugees and their behaviour as possible.

It should be noted the irony in the fact that the Herald Sun has been carrying stories about how awful these "illegal" refugees are for not waiting their turn when the owner of that paper managed to buy his American citizenship in 1985, and can buy his way into any country he liked.

Money isn't everything, but it sure matters a hell of a lot in this society.

mantis

28 Jan 2002, 06:23

Excellent post Wagstaff, I only wish that most people would realize that, but alas they have been brainwashed by the media & the current Goverment. :mad:

Rocky

28 Jan 2002, 11:39

Hey whats all this.
I believe that these idiots should come in the front dood,like every one else.I canst stand the way that Howard and Ruddock are performing.
I didnt vote them back in.I believe that they should look at themselves before critising any one else.
These people should be processed in 6 weeks not 2-6 years and then released.
This government STINKS and the people that put them back in should be ??????

ACV

28 Jan 2002, 12:31

An interesting topic, sure to spark some heated debate. It has already given us a good illustrating as to why Austraila, if it is not regarded as one of the biggest redneck countries in the world, it should be.

I'm not sure that i've compleatly made my mind up about this issue yet, but i'll post my thoughts anyway. Wagstaff is correct in his/her?? claims that the government doesn't care about the homeless/poor etc. However, if you extrapolate this you shall see why the government will not relent on their stance. If these unskilled and poor(being unskilled and poor is the key because they become, largely, unproductive factors in the economy) people are released and integrated into society they will, more than likely, add to that already large pool of poor/welfare dependant people. This creates a greater burden on the government and ultimatly the tax payer. This in turn means that the government needs to find more money, they will not raise tax rates because this will exascerbate the problem. Consequently, they have to reduce government spending, in what areas? It will always occur in the areas such as health and education. So to bring it back to the point, once these refugees are relased and people who will protest about anything, because they have nothing better to do with their lives, will forget about the refugees being released and find something else to whinge about and a perenial favourite is the lack of money in health and education (perhaps with a point), all the while having such a short memory that they can't understand that their protestations have significantly contributed to their current campaign. Also if those people were given the choice then they would, almost every time, choose to have the boat people stay at Woomera than have their own standard of living reduced, i therefore do not have a lot of respect for those people.

Apologies for that getting off the point.

As for the boat people being sent home, it depends on the individual and what he or she has done. I believe that those who come through the legal channels deserve priority, however it does seem that those who come on boats have their applications take a ridiculously long time to be processed. However, there is no excuse for some of the actions that have been taken. Sewing childrens lips together amounts to nothing less than child abuse and if any children die as a result its murder. These amount to at the very least jail time and possible deportation for people in society, but because they are refugees any attempt to charge them as such would see it come under the banner of racial vilification. If any of you out there sewed youre childs lips together, regarldess of reason, would be charged and labeled a monster by society. Why should it be any different for non residents.

So in summary, while i sympathasie with the plight of those in the camps i do not want anyone living in my country that would commit some of the acts that have been commited in Wommera recently

Rocky

28 Jan 2002, 14:24

Trouble with Howard is that he dont care and the trouble with Ruddock is that he is to frightened to open his mouth.
I say,go back to the 70' and 80's when every one had to come in the right way,prosocute the idiots that are making a fortune getting them past Indonesia and lets get on with life in the Greatest country on earth.

evade28

28 Jan 2002, 18:28

Your must be a very sad and insecure and unloving person but you know what is sadder ?

A lot of your so called fellow orstralians will agree with you..gee we are self destructing in a big way!!

dont get personal joffa.

why should these people who come here illegally jump the queue???

and why should they be let out so that they can disappear and never be seen again?

also, why should they be eligible for government funding (like the dole) when i cant get it? if i cant get it then why should they?

it is ridiculous that its takes so long to process their applications, though what credit those applications have i wonder.... seeing as they have no ID etc, what, do they just MAKE IT UP?

also im sure if i was stupid enough to enter THEIR country illegally i would be greeted with a machine gun, just because we dont do that here (because we are half civil) doesnt mean that they can do what they like.

Captain Sensible

28 Jan 2002, 18:40

Originally posted by evade28
look at what they have got at woomera, foxtel, swimming pools, SAFETY etc.

And we have who's word on this? Ruddock and Howard-We all know what happens to honesty and truth when they are around.
Noone else can get near the place other than their hand picked goons.

theyre ungrateful i reckon, theyre not paying for anything, taxpayers pay for their food and clothing, medical bills etc, they carry on like theyre not getting a fair deal.

Detainees pay for their time in detention. They are clients of ACM

when theres homeless australians on the streets, what is the governments priority? their own people arent coming first are they. maybe the derelicts should go out into the bloody sea over in WA put on one of those hat things, a shawl is it? and pretend theyre from afghanistan and get food and everything basically luxury compared to what theyre use to.

You dont understand the homeless very well for a start.

How is spending $130,000,000, as far as anyone can ascertain the government is keeping hush-hush about how they are spending our money, on an unworkable Pacific Solution helping the homeless? Its not, in fact Howard has anonced an expenditure review comittee to look at funding to welfare services to pay for it.

Will discuss the rest of your post later.

ah_19

28 Jan 2002, 20:04

really ppl if you think there is a "que" have a think about it
does saddam hussein let you fill out forms to go to australia
tyrants and dictators will kill you, your familiy and everyone you love because you may have said something bad about them.
no they wont let you join a lovely que where warm and fuzzy australians are waiting wtih open arms

think

CarterS

28 Jan 2002, 22:32

So what is sewing their lips together going to do? Do you think the government will think that they want people like that as citizens of Australia?

And what are they going to do IF they get visas? Most of them probably cannot speak English and they would all end up on welfare and/or the dole eating up even more government money.

because not only do they get that but they get accomodation assistance, free medicare, free english speaking courses and stuff like that.

How would you feel if the government let these people in and then paid their way for basically the rest of their lives, using your money to do so?

Pessimistic

28 Jan 2002, 22:53

Can anyone direct me to woomera ? Sound lovely. as ort of coober peedy with no opals.

I'm actually a pom and ausralia is colloctively scitso on immigrants - so anti yet we are all (or descended from)

One thing summed it all up. When the kosovos came out everyone was falling over themselves to help them. took them to the footy etc etc.

Then a dozen or so had a hissy fit on a bus and the entire nation jacked up on them and they were all ( a few thousnd of them in total) persona non grata. Strange.

And before you all brand me a 'trendy' get this. Being a right wing redneck is trendy these days. Us lefties are definately the unheard of ones.

wagstaff

29 Jan 2002, 00:35

Originally posted by CarterS
So what is sewing their lips together going to do? Do you think the government will think that they want people like that as citizens of Australia?

For me this "sewing lips issue" is becoming exactly like the "throwing children overboard" claim was just before the federal election. Off course it was easily forgotten that severe doubts about the legitmacy of the overboard claims were revealed just before the election.... and the media did their usual job of sweeping the story under the carpet once the election had finished.

I switch off now when I see Howard or Ruddock talking about this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if Howard was using the same moralistic tone as he did during the children overboard issue like how "we don't want those sort of people blah blah..."

Has anyone got any proof that these parents forced their children's lips to be sewed? Oh, that's right, Phillip Ruddock told us that was the case so it must be true.

wagstaff

29 Jan 2002, 00:45

Originally posted by Pessimistic
)
One thing summed it all up. When the kosovos came out everyone was falling over themselves to help them. took them to the footy etc etc.

Then a dozen or so had a hissy fit on a bus and the entire nation jacked up on them and they were all ( a few thousnd of them in total) persona non grata. Strange.

And before you all brand me a 'trendy' get this. Being a right wing redneck is trendy these days. Us lefties are definately the unheard of ones.

It's amazing how accomadating the Australian media, government
and sections of the public can be if refugees are sucking up to the Australian government by saying how wonderful this country is.

But as soon as there's even the slightest bit of protest about their living conditions, just see the venom in those comments in the Herald Sun 50-50 column!

And despite claims to the contrary by various columinists such as Andrew Bolt that the left run this country (uni professors have more control over Australian society then Kerry Stokes and Bolt's boss? that makes sense), the tone in the press is invariably right-wing. The closest to an alternative is some column in The Age, where some person from business sector, fearing that Australia's business reputation has been harmed, argues that we should be more "compassionate" towards refugees.

London Dave

29 Jan 2002, 02:39

You have hit a point there Pessimistic (and Wagstaff), and will no doubt suffer a torrent of abuse for it. I think perhaps people need the refugees to be 'grateful' by adopting 'australian' ways. European migrants copped it in the 50's onwards, as did those from SE Asia in the 70's. Migrant are required to prostrate themselves at the shrine of Australianess, forever preofessing the greatness of the country, etc. Australia needs to grow up a little.

Australia has always been a conservative country. Anyone who thinks we are a nation of liberal freethinkers is deluded.

and pessimistic, I have made the point on threads like these before that everyone in australia is an immigrant, or ones descendant.

Unfortunately, the phrase 'there but for the grace of God go I' doesnt seem to have much resonance anymore.

Bloodstained Angel

29 Jan 2002, 12:08

These boat people are running away from the very regimes that Australia has fought against.

We have a moral imperative to help these people - they are not que jumpers (show me where the que starts for chrissake ?????),

they are most certainly not terrorists, they are not fanatics, they are not cheats,

they are ordinary everyday people who are risking everything to escape from the very people Australia itself is fighting against.

In 1975, almost as soon as the fall of Saigon, boatloads of Vietnmese people started showing up on Australia's coastline. They were fleeing the new communist regime.

Malcolm Fraser and the Coalition Government at the time let them in, in fact they were welcomed with open arms.

Why ? - becuase Fraser correctly identified these people as being on the same side as us, and, therefore, Australia had a moral imperative to help these people.

With this lot -it seems they are ot interested in a moral imperative - Ruddock is compliant and won't rock the boat. Howard is just a plain old racist who 'feels uncomfortable' around 'ragheads' and other people who don't look like Earlwood Garage Proprietors.

In 1988 he said he 'didn't like' seeing so many "asian faces' on the streets of Sydney - Don't anyone think he has changed his viewpoint - he is the small minded suburban bigot he always was and always will be.

cheers

Rocky

29 Jan 2002, 13:51

Shinboners

29 Jan 2002, 15:00

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Malcolm Fraser and the Coalition Government at the time let them in, in fact they were welcomed with open arms.

Why ? - becuase Fraser correctly identified these people as being on the same side as us, and, therefore, Australia had a moral imperative to help these people.

Fraser KNEW that the Australian population had a fear of an Asian invasion (in essence, not a lot different to the current fears over the current refugees), so he went on a campaign to seel the benefits. He sent his immigration minister (either Fred Chaney or Ian McPhee....can't remember exactly which one) and the shadow immigration minister (Al Grassby) on a tour around the country to speak to the people to calm their fears and sell the benefits of immigration. That is what I call leading public opinion.

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 15:40

I'm all for letting these people in as long as they are genuine.

A couple of questions though.

1) Why is the government taking so long in processing these people? We have had refugees here before and there has not been this kind of problem.

2) How can refugees afford to pay over $10,000 to people smugglers?

In my opinion, genuine refugees should be assisted by this country, but people who are not refugees and are just trying to emmigrate to Australia without going through the proper procedures by paying "people smugglers" large sums of money should not be allowed in.

Bomber Spirit

29 Jan 2002, 18:31

Originally posted by Briedis
In my opinion, genuine refugees should be assisted by this country, but people who are not refugees and are just trying to emmigrate to Australia without going through the proper procedures by paying "people smugglers" large sums of money should not be allowed in.
No argument there. The problem is what happens while we're working out which ones are genuine and which are not. And unfortunately there's no viable alternative to detention.

Shinboners

29 Jan 2002, 18:40

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
And unfortunately there's no viable alternative to detention.

When someone from overseas gets Australian residency, I think the applicant needs someone to put up a bond to ensure that they don't break any of the rules regarding their "probationary" period.

Perhaps the same system could be applied to the refugees. If anyone wants them to be released from detention and into the care of the person or group putting up the bond, they have to pledge a bond ($10,000? $20,000? $50,000? whatever) so that if the applicant for refugee status breaks the law OR doesn't attend any of the meetings for the process of checking their credentials, the bond is forfeited AND the applicant automatically loses the right to continue with their application.

dreamkillers

29 Jan 2002, 19:29

I thought that Pauline Hanson had quit politics,but it seems that she is alive and well hiding behind a pair of specs,a false smile and a balding head......Mr.Howard I presume.
Who said racism is dead

__________________
Catch you all later

Rocky
PIES for Premiers 2002

It's interesting that we spend so much trying to keep out a few thousand boat people that try and get to this country each year yet basically nothing is done to the illegal's that overstay their visa's. I heard the figure is around the 80,000 mark but then the majority of these are from the US or Britain so not considered a problem by our govt given their background.

Considering the US, Britain and a lot of Western European countries have more than between 100,000 and 500,000 illegal refugees arrive on their shores every year it makes ours a small drop in the ocean really.

Given our Naval boats cost about $100,000 per day to operate and the millions of dollars we are giving to other countries to process them off shore (as well as pay the wages to their staff). On top of that the huge costs to run the camps in our country for those that actually make it to Australia.

We must be spending well over $100,000 per refugee that attempts to get to our country with our current policies - surely we have more important things to spend this money on.

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 07:04

Originally posted by wagstaff
It should be noted the irony in the fact that the Herald Sun has been carrying stories about how awful these "illegal" refugees are for not waiting their turn when the owner of that paper managed to buy his American citizenship in 1985, and can buy his way into any country he liked.

Even more ironic is the fact that the father of the man seen as one of the icons of the Liberal party (Menzies) entered this country by jumping ship. I guess you only have to wait in line if you aren't waspish. From what I've been told Malcolm Frasers father also enered australia this way. Perhaps that explains his rather more tolerant attitude.

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 07:08

Originally posted by Briedis
A couple of questions though.

1) Why is the government taking so long in processing these people? We have had refugees here before and there has not been this kind of problem.

Because Howard wants word to get back that if you come to this country in a boat you'll get sent out to the desert and spend 2 years in detention. He thinks it'll deter people. He'd be better off proceesing them quickly, and if they don't meet the refugee criteria sending them home quickly.

2) How can refugees afford to pay over $10,000 to people smugglers?

Many of the refugees coming here are the middle class in their countries and they spend their life savings to get here. Being poor is not a pre-requisite for being a refugee. A refugee is someone who flees their country because they can no longer live there safely.

In my opinion, genuine refugees should be assisted by this country, but people who are not refugees and are just trying to emmigrate to Australia without going through the proper procedures by paying "people smugglers" large sums of money should not be allowed in.

Last year we took in two refugees from Pakistan. Two. The government also moved the regugee office from Pakistan to Thailand. How else do you expect someone from that country to get here now?

wagstaff

30 Jan 2002, 13:03

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit

No argument there. The problem is what happens while we're working out which ones are genuine and which are not. And unfortunately there's no viable alternative to detention.

Does anyone actually know what is (or used to be) defined as a refugee? It used to the Geneva Convention, but which seems to be under increasing attack. THe relevant information can be found at this site with the link at the bottom called 'The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention' being the most valid one.

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

Bloodstained Angel

31 Jan 2002, 06:51

a few people in this thread have said that 'there is no viable alternative to detention"

Ummmm - hello ?????

Out of over 200 individual sovereigin states on the face of Planet Earth, we are the only ones who lock up refugees

Thats right people - we are the only ones. Absolutely unique in our cold hearted, harsh and mean spirited approach to refugees.

North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia and China all treat refugees with more humanity than we do.

We are the only ones that lock these people up.

Anmd its not even like we have a problem.

Last year less than 5000 people made it here by boat - LESS THAN 5000 - think about it folks - thats not even enough to fill one single seationg bay in the Great Southern Stand.

Its a pathetic, miniscule amount. Yet we can't even bring ourselves to treat these people with ordinary, decent humanity.

One would think we are being invaded, the way some people here have crapped on about these people.

Lets just repeat that figure - LESS THAN 5000 people made it here.

Other countries in the world have that many arrivals in a week, let alone a year - yet these countries don't throw them into hell-holes in the middle of the desert, other countries do not treat refugees like they are criminals (in fact common criminals are treated better in this country than refugees, who have committed no crime)

IF EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY ON PLANET EARTH CAN ACCEPT REFUGEES WITHOUT LOCKING THEM UP, WHY CAN"T WE ?

'no alternative to detention' ? - yeah right pull the other one - its got bells on.

cheers

evade28

31 Jan 2002, 10:17

what about quarantine etc? how do we know these people aren't bringing things with them or possibly carrying diseases? i dont want them let out into society to maybe infect people here who dont have that disease. this country is very much free of disease, whereas countries they come from aren't, therefore theyre going to have to be locked up for a while anyway.

Fat Red

31 Jan 2002, 10:20

Originally posted by evade28
what about quarantine etc? how do we know these people aren't bringing things with them or possibly carrying diseases? i dont want them let out into society to maybe infect people here who dont have that disease. this country is very much free of disease, whereas countries they come from aren't, therefore theyre going to have to be locked up for a while anyway.

That is the stupidest thing I have read on bigfooty.

The last country almost all of these people come from is Indonesia. If we did that, we'd have to lock up everyone who comes back from Bali.

1AD

31 Jan 2002, 10:48

Originally posted by Fat Red

That is the stupidest thing I have read on bigfooty.

.

Don't you read Frodo's posts?;)

evade28

31 Jan 2002, 11:01

what im saying is these people dont go through a quarantine system like people at airports do. they just turn up.
oh yeah, and people from bali go through security, with sniffer dogs, xray machines etc. they also have passports, whereas the people coming from those derelictic boats have no ID whatsoever.

Fat Red

31 Jan 2002, 11:12

Originally posted by evade28
what im saying is these people dont go through a quarantine system like people at airports do. they just turn up.
oh yeah, and people from bali go through security, with sniffer dogs, xray machines etc. they also have passports, whereas the people coming from those derelictic boats have no ID whatsoever.

that's true, but all that means is that when they give themselves up (which they virtually always do), they need to be searched. I have no problem with that, but it doesn't mean they have to be locked up.

Tim_in_Philly

1 Feb 2002, 16:18

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
a few people in this thread have said that 'there is no viable alternative to detention"

Ummmm - hello ?????

Out of over 200 individual sovereigin states on the face of Planet Earth, we are the only ones who lock up refugees

Thats right people - we are the only ones. Absolutely unique in our cold hearted, harsh and mean spirited approach to refugees.

North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia and China all treat refugees with more humanity than we do.

We are the only ones that lock these people up.

Anmd its not even like we have a problem.

Last year less than 5000 people made it here by boat - LESS THAN 5000 - think about it folks - thats not even enough to fill one single seationg bay in the Great Southern Stand.

Its a pathetic, miniscule amount. Yet we can't even bring ourselves to treat these people with ordinary, decent humanity.

One would think we are being invaded, the way some people here have crapped on about these people.

Lets just repeat that figure - LESS THAN 5000 people made it here.

Other countries in the world have that many arrivals in a week, let alone a year - yet these countries don't throw them into hell-holes in the middle of the desert, other countries do not treat refugees like they are criminals (in fact common criminals are treated better in this country than refugees, who have committed no crime)

IF EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY ON PLANET EARTH CAN ACCEPT REFUGEES WITHOUT LOCKING THEM UP, WHY CAN"T WE ?

'no alternative to detention' ? - yeah right pull the other one - its got bells on.

cheers

I appreciate your sentiments BSA but unfortunately it isn't true. Almost all countries treat "undocumented entrants" by either detention or immediate return to the country of departure. Some countries such as Canada and Norway have time limits on the length of detention with assessment resulting in people joining the normal refugee application queue or being sent home. In the case of the normal refugee queue for people arriving with documentation (ie passport, tourist visa - in other words people arriving at an airport), these people are allowed entry into Australia while their application is processed.

One of the most irritating things about this whole issue has been the media slanging match which has avoided any reference to factual information. Commentators from both sides of politics are simply point-scoring with no real interest in the actual issue.

A good web-site for info is www.refugees.org where it is possible to compare Australia's record - both good and bad - against other countries.

There is a good article about "Regional Co-operation" which tells what was wrong with the Tampa process but also what the Australian government does to help in Indonesia (eg their refugee processing is paid for by us).

Check out the web-site - it is a good source of FACTS.

Frodo

1 Feb 2002, 17:28

Well here's another stupid one for you 1AD :rolleyes:

What do you call people who go on hunger strikes, sew up lips etc?

Radicals, extremists?

Maybe just the sort that will be suicide bombers of the future..........living here in australia and causing mayhem without a question being asked if half of the bigfooty posters had their way.

Frodo

1 Feb 2002, 17:32

Originally posted by Fat Red

The last country almost all of these people come from is Indonesia. If we did that, we'd have to lock up everyone who comes back from Bali.

So they maybe are a threat to Indonesia also.

And as for Bali, it is a filthy disease ridden hole with thousands coming back every year and going straight to the doctor.

Concerns about health and bringing disease into Australia are scofed at dangerously.

Bomber Spirit

1 Feb 2002, 17:43

Most alternatives mentioned are perfectly workable if you're prepared to define a refugee simply as someone who claims to be a refugee. If you accept that definition, then there's no need to worry about processing, you can close detention centres and save a lot of money.
But not even the UNHCR accepts that definition. So therefore, whenever someone arrives in Australia and claims to be a refugee, their claims have to be processed and assessed.
Unfortunately, in the same way that even though accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty they are often remanded in custody until their cases are heard, unless bail is granted, the same has to happen with assylum seekers. Shinboners' idea of a bond/bail isn't a bad one in some cases, but may not always be appropriate.
But, that being the case, it's important for applications to be decided quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Dippers Donuts

1 Feb 2002, 23:46

Originally posted by evade28
what im saying is these people dont go through a quarantine system like people at airports do. they just turn up.
oh yeah, and people from bali go through security, with sniffer dogs, xray machines etc. they also have passports, whereas the people coming from those derelictic boats have no ID whatsoever.

and what do you think we do with them at the detention centres, play twister with them all day long?

They are given thorough medical examinations and treatment for diseases at these facilities (not that I am in any way endorsing these hell holes...)

Dippers Donuts

1 Feb 2002, 23:52

Originally posted by Frodo
Well here's another stupid one for you 1AD :rolleyes:

What do you call people who go on hunger strikes, sew up lips etc?

Radicals, extremists?

Maybe just the sort that will be suicide bombers of the future..........living here in australia and causing mayhem without a question being asked if half of the bigfooty posters had their way.

I would call these poor souls desperate...driven to despair by the one of the most callous governments in the world.

More than likely (like the overwhelming majority of previous asylum seekers granted refugee status) they will be law abiding, constructive contributors to Australian society.

Frodo

2 Feb 2002, 10:30

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

I would call these poor souls desperate...driven to despair by the one of the most callous governments in the world.

No doubt exactly what Bin Laden & Co say of themselves v America

London Dave

3 Feb 2002, 01:35

This is one of the best articles I have read on this particular issue. A few have you have probably read it, its from the age (and SMH too I'd say). Some may dismiss it as leftist drivel, or right wing crap, but its just your mindset at work. food for thought for all of us!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2002/02/02/FFXFCKXU4XC.html

Stand by for some fancy moral footwork on detainees

By HUGH MACKAY
Saturday 2 February 2002

Mindset is everything. Once we've made up our minds about something, it's the devil's own job to get us to change - partly because a change feels like a backdown, but mainly because we become adept at interpreting everything we see and hear in ways that reinforce our existing point of view.

Do you believe the Woomera detainees are a mob of reckless troublemakers, queue-jumpers, potential terrorists, or, at best, "illegals"? If so, you probably interpret their hunger strike as a welcome confirmation of your beliefs. Sewing up their lips? Threatening suicide in response to the harshness of their treatment? There you go ... told you they were hopeless - we don't want people like that in Australia.

You probably wanted to believe that refugees were the kind of people who would throw their children overboard from a sinking boat. Even when it turned out there wasn't a thread of evidence to support that mischievous claim, you clung to the idea - rather like a refugee clinging to a sinking boat - because it kept your prejudice afloat.

If, on the other hand, you believe the detainees are in a desperate situation and, based on recent trends, most of them will turn out to be genuine refugees with a strong claim for asylum, then you'll see recent events at Woomera as a national disgrace. You'll regard the hunger strikers as expressing justified outrage at being treated more brutally than we treat our criminals, and the Federal Government's response to the crisis as both hard-hearted and morally indefensible.

Mindsets are such powerful protectors of our beliefs and prejudices that even a frontal attack can be rebuffed with ease. Indeed, the most blatant attacks are the ones most likely to fail. When someone throws a punch, you duck or counter-punch as a reflex reaction, and that's precisely what happens when someone throws a metaphorical punch at your fondly held beliefs.

The very arguments that inspire our supporters to agree with us inspire our opponents to disagree. That is one of the great frustrations of communication: the same piece of information (such as this column) can serve the purposes of people on both sides of the argument.

The greatest irony in all this is that when we attack our opponents' views, they are not simply unmoved by our arguments - they become even more entrenched in their resistance than they were before we forced them to defend their position.

Case in point: as the situation in the detention centres appears to move beyond the inhumane to the outrageous - with welfare agencies offering hospitality to refugees and international criticism of Australia becoming more vociferous - the Federal Government remains intransigent.

The Prime Minister and Immigration Minister seem almost to thrive on the attacks on their policy, just as religious minorities thrive on persecution. Even as the talk now turns to repatriation, the policy of mandatory detention is being reasserted with full prime ministerial vigour, and there is no hint that conditions at Woomera might be eased.

Still, we must presume the government is not evil, so it will eventually dawn on the minister that no amount of "illegality" in the means of refugees' arrival can justify the harshness of our treatment of them in detention centres. (Already there is talk of restarting the processing of visa applications, but why did that process ever stop?)

Ministers, like all of us, know that two wrongs don't make a right and that the inhumane treatment of anyone in our midst, however they come to be here, diminishes us as a society. The acid test of the decency of any society is the way it deals with the disadvantaged, the drop-outs, the criminals and, yes, the "aliens". A growing number of Australians - though still apparently a minority - think we are failing that test.

There are legitimate issues, still to be properly debated, about border protection, about repatriation of refugees no longer seeking asylum, and about aid to Afghanistan. But all that is separate from the question of how we should treat fellow human beings who, for whatever reason, have fetched up on Australia's shores as refugees.

So, what now? Will the government respond to the moral imperative, or will the weight of community opinion embolden the government to rank populism above moral precept, at least in its rhetoric? Or will the government, knowing it has erred, finally modify its approach to the treatment of detainees, especially children, while continuing to suggest that nothing has changed?

That would be a fancy piece of moral footwork: "I want to do the right thing, but I don't want you to know I'm doing it." Still, when mindsets are powerful enough, we can convince ourselves that we haven't changed our minds even while our actions suggest otherwise.

Hugh Mackay is an author and social researcher.

1AD

4 Feb 2002, 08:43

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frodo
[B]Well here's another stupid one for you 1AD :rolleyes:

Thanks, you don't dissapoint.
;)

Rocky

5 Feb 2002, 13:23

I say $3,000:00 to send them back,via Qantas and at our expense.Not even Mr.Ruddock knows what is going on and Little Johhny says that he is honest.Why should we pay to send them back.They came to this country illegially,so send them back illegally,vie the first boat out even if it is a warship.
We dont need or want them here.
20-30 years ago people cam here via ship or boat,but them came in the front door.If these idiots can afford $10,000:00 to come in the back door well why not spend it the LEGAL way.
I hate this subject....I am sorry I started it...CHRIST give me strength

mrboy

9 Feb 2002, 15:11

i say put them i jail, the afghans would have donethe same thing if we entered there country illeagly.

evade28

11 Feb 2002, 09:24

jail? yeah right, more like a bloody machine gun or something. if i turned up at their country dressed like i am i would be stoned 2 death the second they saw me. they expect us to abide by their laws but when they get here its a different kettle of fish isnt it now, burning down the place, sewing their lips and just generally carrying on like fools. if they did that in their own country they would be killed.

BrisGirl

11 Feb 2002, 12:52

I am not sure the waiting period is for immigrants, at a guess, 3 years. Immigrants do it the correct way, put their names down to come to Australia and do all of the correct procedures to make it happen.

Let say we have boat people - refugees. Who do not have the civilisation to have the opportunity to put their name down and wait the required time frame to get the permission. They hop on a boat and they land on Australia without passports and can not speak a word of english.

I believe that refugees could be detained for the same time period as the Immigrants have to wait and in that period, they learn to speak English and have all of the required needles and health checks. So when they are placed in the community, they are well and healthy and can speak English.

I am not sure how I would react if I had no idea how long I would be locked up for. Humans have a great capacity for tolerance and patience, but it helps if they also know when there will be a light at the end of the tunnel. If there is no light, no end...what is left?

dreamkillers

13 Feb 2002, 02:10

Interesting comments by the Human Rights Commission after their visit to Woomera:-

6 February 2002

Media Statement by President Professor Alice Tay AM and
Dr Sev Ozdowski, Human Rights Commissioner OAM

Woomera Immigration Detention Centre Report of visit by HREOC officers

HREOC officers recently completed a fact finding mission to Woomera IRPC, as part of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention currently being undertaken by the Commission.

The five day assessment was extremely thorough and included interviews with children, children with their family, parents, single men and women; in all, eleven families were interviewed and approximately twenty children.

The officers also spoke with the DIMIA Business Manager, the ACM Centre Manager, as well as the following ACM staff: Director of Programs, Medical Services Co-ordinator, Medical Officer, ACM officers (including an ACM officer responsible for unaccompanied minors) Activities Officer and Psychologist

All members of the Commission met on Friday 1 February to consider the report of the visit. Based on the evidence provided to it, the Commission concluded that there are clear breaches of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory.

Summary of Officers' Observations

Self-harming behaviour

The official statistics provided to HREOC officers by ACM indicated the following incidents of self-harm occurred over a two week period:

Lip sewing: 5 children (one 14 year old sewed his lips twice)
Slashing: 3 children (the above child also slashed "freedom" into his forearm)
Ingestion of shampoo: 2 children
Attempted hanging: 1 child
Threats of self hurt: 13 children

This is a significant proportion of the total child population of 236 at the Centre. It would indicate that, not unsurprisingly, children are responding to the atmosphere of despair in which they live. It is self-evident that manifestations such as these are likely to permanently mark the psychological outlook of these children. HREOC officers in discussion with ACM found no evidence of parents encouraging children to engage in acts of self harm.

Interviews by HREOC officers with children produced many responses that indicated a propensity for self harm and suicidal thoughts.

Examples from three interviews:

Interview 1 (12 year old girl)
"I am getting crazy, I cut my hand. I can't talk to my mother. I can't talk to anyone and I am very tired. There is no solution for me - I just have to commit suicide - there is no choice."

Interview 2 (16 year old boy)
"Some of us, we not have anyone in here. What can we do except kill ourselves? If no-one help us, I kill myself. If I kill myself, at least I do something for the people."

Interview 3 (13 year old boy - quote from family member)
"We notice that while he sleeps he talks and screams: "fire, fire, fire", and jumps up from sleep in nightmares... We ask him to go and bring a book and he forgets about that and when he is walking he walks disordered and is not concentrating."

That children are suffering psychological trauma from these experiences would seem beyond doubt.

Schooling

HREOC officers also observed that despite ACM's efforts to provide schooling opportunities for the children, this is confined to those aged twelve and under, and is not comparable in any way to the education received by Australian twelve year olds. There are a number of children over 12 years of age who virtually receive no schooling at all. All children are taught in the one classroom. Education is provided for a total of only two hours a day, four days a week.

This is contrary to Australia's obligations under Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide educational opportunities to all children within its jurisdiction

Conclusion

Breaches of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Based on evidence such as that referred to above, the Commission is of the view that Woomera IRPC places the Commonwealth in breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly (but not restricted to) Article 19(1) "State parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, whilst in the care of legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

The Government also needs to reassess its position concerning Articles 6(2) (child's right to survival and development); 22(1) (ensure the protection of rights of child refugees or asylum seekers); 24 (child's right to highest attainable standard of health); 27 (child's right to adequate standard of living); 31 (child's right to play and recreational activities); 37(c) (the right of the child deprived of liberty to be treated with humanity and respect); 39 (promotion of physical and psychological recovery of child victim of neglect, abuse etc) and most particularly 37(b) of the Convention which states: "…… Detention shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time." with particular emphasis to Woomera.

HREOC officers reported that Woomera IRPC is now enveloped in a self- reinforcing miasma of despair and desperation, and there was a wide spread sense of despair due to the length of time in detention and the concomitant uncertainty over status. It is this uncertainty that asylum seekers have indicated is at the root cause of fire and property destruction in November and hunger strikes and incidents of self-harm in late January. This is not an appropriate environment for children.

The Commission has written to Immigration Minister Mr Philip Ruddock bringing these breaches to his attention. The Commission now awaits the Minister's response as to how these breaches will be immediately rectified.

Media contact: Janine MacDonald: 0408 469 347

you can also find some of the pictures they took at the following site http://www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2002/06_02.html

at least we are now finally seeing some actual facts come out about Woomera

Briedis

14 Feb 2002, 11:37

This country seems to be running on fear from these people. I think that it's very sad that we can't help these people and so many Australians have such a hostile attitude towards them.

Detension, whilst we work out their status, OK I guess there is no alternative, but that is not really the issue for me. I can't believe how many people want them to be shipped back home. What are you afraid of? We have all come here looking for a better life, why deny it of these people?

Bloodstained Angel

14 Feb 2002, 11:43

ahhh but Briedis - don't you get it ?

these people are 'undesirables' who sew up their kids lips and throw them overboard off leaking boats.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bee

14 Feb 2002, 11:52

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
ahhh but Briedis - don't you get it ?

these people are 'undesirables' who sew up their kids lips and throw them overboard off leaking boats.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yep especially if you listen to "Johnny, liar, liar pants on fire Howard".

Briedis

14 Feb 2002, 12:19

Originally posted by Bee

Yep especially if you listen to "Johnny, liar, liar pants on fire Howard".

I think this is the main reason why a weak ALP is one of the saddest things in our country. I'm not an ALP voter, but we need to have an opposing voice, but Beazely and now Crean are too soft and can't stand up to Howard....:( Hell, they don't even know if what he's saying is true or not...they just believe him....

mrboy

15 Feb 2002, 15:20

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
ahhh but Briedis - don't you get it ?

these people are 'undesirables' who sew up their kids lips and throw them overboard off leaking boats.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

if you dont like this country **** off back to new zealand.

ill say it once, those families deserved to be in jail cause they done the wrong thing!

RoosLuver

15 Feb 2002, 15:25

I dont know if this has been said or not but on A Current Affair tonite (Friday), there is gonna be a interview with one of the guards at Woomera so it will be interesting to see what she has to say!

Sydneyfan

15 Feb 2002, 15:31

Originally posted by mrboy

if you dont like this country **** off back to new zealand.

Gee, that's nice if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the Government on every single issue you should leave. :rolleyes:

What are you mrboy, a facsist?

mrboy

15 Feb 2002, 15:33

Originally posted by Sydneyfan

Gee, that's nice if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the Government on every single issue you should leave. :rolleyes:

What are you mrboy, a facsist?

i was only telling her to quit her complaining as it is not going to change anything, same with the chatmaster saga in bigfooty.

floreat picaman

16 Feb 2002, 18:37

Originally posted by Sydneyfan

Gee, that's nice if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the Government on every single issue you should leave. :rolleyes:

What are you mrboy, a facsist?

He must be because a communist would torture you from having your own view.

God

11 Mar 2002, 15:23

Originally posted by Briedis
I'm all for letting these people in as long as they are genuine.

A couple of questions though.

1) Why is the government taking so long in processing these people? We have had refugees here before and there has not been this kind of problem.

2) How can refugees afford to pay over $10,000 to people smugglers?

In my opinion, genuine refugees should be assisted by this country, but people who are not refugees and are just trying to emmigrate to Australia without going through the proper procedures by paying "people smugglers" large sums of money should not be allowed in.

sorry for bringing up this topic but i just had to answer your question bederis.

1) Because they done it illeagaly.

2) They save it up or borrow it.

and for people who reckon its all right to let illeagal immigrants need to get their brains checked.....

Thrawn

11 Mar 2002, 19:44

God... do you have any idea of what these "illegal immigrants" have been through? Do you have any idea what their living conditions were like, or what their home was like?

Would you break the law, if your life, and the life of your family depended on it? Would you? I'd love to see you try and live in Afganistan, what, with the US bombing, civil, famine, poverty, disease and all?

God

11 Mar 2002, 20:37

Originally posted by Thrawn
God... do you have any idea of what these "illegal immigrants" have been through? Do you have any idea what their living conditions were like, or what their home was like?

Would you break the law, if your life, and the life of your family depended on it? Would you? I'd love to see you try and live in Afganistan, what, with the US bombing, civil, famine, poverty, disease and all?

they broke the law thrawn!

Bloodstained Angel

12 Mar 2002, 06:52

If somebody arrives in Australia without papers and asks for political asylum

THEY ARE BREAKING NO LAW

repeat - absolutely nothing illegal about asking for political asylum in a country that has signed the UN Convention on Refugees (1951)

also, there is absolutely no written law for the Commonwealth of Austrlia that forbids people arriving in this country and asking for political asylum

just repeat that - THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAW AT ALL

none, absolutely zero, zilch kaput.

Could some of you White Australia enthusiasts please explain why these people are locked up - WHEN THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAW ?

Or do you just think they are 'undesirables' (whatever an 'undesirable is ? :rolleyes: )

cheers

Bee

12 Mar 2002, 09:52

Originally posted by God

they broke the law !

What law have they broken? Maybe the unwritten law of being so desperate to escape the tyranny and opression of their home country that they bundle their families into an unseaworthy. leaky boat, so that they might have a better and fairer chance at life!

Then we lock them up in prison. Yes, that's right prison, because that's what Woomera is - a prison!
Except nobody wants to call it that they'd rather give it a "nicer" name and refer to it as a detention centre.

Strange country we live in, isn't it? We lock up innocent people in a prison and let half the real criminals roam the streets. Either that or we vote them into power!

God

12 Mar 2002, 14:30

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
If somebody arrives in Australia without papers and asks for political asylum

THEY ARE BREAKING NO LAW

repeat - absolutely nothing illegal about asking for political asylum in a country that has signed the UN Convention on Refugees (1951)

also, there is absolutely no written law for the Commonwealth of Austrlia that forbids people arriving in this country and asking for political asylum

just repeat that - THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAW AT ALL

none, absolutely zero, zilch kaput.

Could some of you White Australia enthusiasts please explain why these people are locked up - WHEN THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAW ?

Or do you just think they are 'undesirables' (whatever an 'undesirable is ? :rolleyes: )

cheers

yes they are, they are breaking laws. it is illeagal to come into our country with out the proper procedure.

besides if there so desprate how came they paid thousands of dollars to get smuggled here?

of course you dont understand it because you a hippie.

and bee your hopeless

God

12 Mar 2002, 14:34

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
If somebody arrives in Australia without papers and asks for political asylum

THEY ARE BREAKING NO LAW

repeat - absolutely nothing illegal about asking for political asylum in a country that has signed the UN Convention on Refugees (1951)

also, there is absolutely no written law for the Commonwealth of Austrlia that forbids people arriving in this country and asking for political asylum

just repeat that - THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAW AT ALL

none, absolutely zero, zilch kaput.

Could some of you White Australia enthusiasts please explain why these people are locked up - WHEN THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAW ?

Or do you just think they are 'undesirables' (whatever an 'undesirable is ? :rolleyes: )

cheers

how about this?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/imm-a18.shtml

http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/uad/03.htm

see.

they were breaking the laws.

Thrawn

12 Mar 2002, 15:17

Ummm... God (Mrboy), you didn't answer my questions:

God... do you have any idea of what these "illegal immigrants" have been through? Do you have any idea what their living conditions were like, or what their home was like?

Would you break the law, if your life, and the life of your family depended on it? Would you? I'd love to see you try and live in Afganistan, what, with the US bombing, civil, famine, poverty, disease and all?

You did not answer those three questions provided in my reply. Answer them please, and I'll leave you alone (maybe).

Answer the questions.

God

12 Mar 2002, 15:43

i dont know what your problem is but i am not mrboy.

i am god.

as you can see on the posts with the links they are breaking the laws.

so boo hoo thrawn.

God

12 Mar 2002, 15:45

Originally posted by Thrawn
God... do you have any idea of what these "illegal immigrants" have been through? Do you have any idea what their living conditions were like, or what their home was like?
Would you break the law, if your life, and the life of your family depended on it?

of course i have.

as for the third question, would you cheat in a race to pay off a debt?

Thrawn

12 Mar 2002, 18:35

Bah! Stop lying, it's obvious that you're mrboy. Same behaviour, same "opinions" of this issue and same typing...

No, the links do not answer my questions. I want you to answer my questions regarding this issue... or are you afraid that you are wrong?

You still also haven't answered the question "Which law are they breaking", the links you posted describe tougher laws being introduced, but no where does it mention that "they broke the law", and if so, which law is that? The law of Mrboy?

God

12 Mar 2002, 18:52

Originally posted by Thrawn
Bah! Stop lying, it's obvious that you're mrboy. Same behaviour, same "opinions" of this issue and same typing...

No, the links do not answer my questions. I want you to answer my questions regarding this issue... or are you afraid that you are wrong?

You still also haven't answered the question "Which law are they breaking", the links you posted describe tougher laws being introduced, but no where does it mention that "they broke the law", and if so, which law is that? The law of Mrboy?

you are a ********.

your arrogance is stinking.

i am not mrboy but god.

its obvious from the links that the law that there breaking is entering australia illeagaly

Bloodstained Angel

13 Mar 2002, 06:56

if you dont like this country **** off back to new zealand.

said mrBoy

gee thats nice mate, can't argue the point so you just play the man huh ?

MrBoy - you are living proof that reptiles can indeed operate computer equipment.

Theoden

13 Mar 2002, 10:50

October 18 2006 Late breaking News

The St. Kilda Killer (nicknamed the Skiller) was captured today. Society can breathe a sigh of relief after this serial killer has been caught, ending a run of 37 brutal murders.

The killer is a fast tracked Iraqi refugee that was cleared for settlement into Australia after 10 months in Woomera and a public outcry over detention. The breakthrough came following the collapse of the Hussein government in Iraq and information provided by Interpol that a man fitting the killers description had fled Iraq in 2001 after being wanted for 18 similar killings. Australian officials commented that the man arrived with no paperwork at all.

fiction, yes, but possible none the less

1AD

13 Mar 2002, 12:07

Originally posted by Theoden
October 18 2006 Late breaking News

The St. Kilda Killer (nicknamed the Skiller) was captured today. Society can breathe a sigh of relief after this serial killer has been caught, ending a run of 37 brutal murders.

The killer is a fast tracked Iraqi refugee that was cleared for settlement into Australia after 10 months in Woomera and a public outcry over detention. The breakthrough came following the collapse of the Hussein government in Iraq and information provided by Interpol that a man fitting the killers description had fled Iraq in 2001 after being wanted for 18 similar killings. Australian officials commented that the man arrived with no paperwork at all.

fiction, yes, but possible none the less

Meanwhile the 14th dinky di Aussie Taliban fighter has been found wandering in the mountains near Kabul.

:rolleyes:

Thrawn

13 Mar 2002, 14:56

you are a ********.

So you are resorting to insulting me? We had a discussion, and I debated your points... and you insult me? That's real nice of you MrBoy, the fact that you completely ignored my questions and decided to talk absolute rubbish.

I know... you couldn't come up with a valid point, and decided to insult rather than to discuss my point. You're an absolute fool.

your arrogance is stinking.

What does arrogance have to do with this? I asked you some questions, you didn't answer them. How the hell does that make me arrogant?

i am not mrboy but god.

Let's see:

- You are probably the only one on this board who has stated what you had about "illegal immigrants", and the only one who has this sort of attitude towards them (as far a I know, anyway).

- You are the only poster I know who calls me "arrogant".

- You come up with the same one-liners day in, day out.

- You seem to have the same typing method, and the same grammar.

If you want the ultimate proof, Bluey or some of the mods could check (seeing as you have cable), but that's pointless. We know that you are MrBoy, and all the things you do, MrBoy did. Don't lie, I can see right through you like a pane of glass.

its obvious from the links that the law that there breaking is entering australia illeagaly

No it's not. I've read throguh the links, and not one of them state that they are "breaking the law", it's just you, and your constant lying.

BSA... you're damn right - he is living proof that lizards can use computers ;) Okay... I've done my bit, and that's all. Hope this child can input what I have written, otherwise it's pointless replying to him. Maybe it's just because I'm bored?

God

13 Mar 2002, 14:58

Originally posted by Thrawn

So you are resorting to insulting me? We had a discussion, and I debated your points... and you insult me? That's real nice of you MrBoy, the fact that you completely ignored my questions and decided to talk absolute rubbish.

I know... you couldn't come up with a valid point, and decided to insult rather than to discuss my point. You're an absolute fool.

What does arrogance have to do with this? I asked you some questions, you didn't answer them. How the hell does that make me arrogant?

i am not mrboy but god.

Let's see:

- You are probably the only one on this board who has stated what you had about "illegal immigrants", and the only one who has this sort of attitude towars them (as far a I know, anyway).

- You are the only poster I know who calls me "arrogant".

- You come up with the same one-liners day in, day out.

- You seem to have the same typing method, and the same grammar.

If you want the ultimate proof, Bluey or some of the mods could check (seeing as you have cable), but that's pointless. We know that you are MrBoy, and all the things you do, MrBoy did. Don't lie, I can see right through you like a pane of glass.

No it's not. I've read throguh the links, and not one of them state that they are "breaking the law", it's just you, and your constant lying.

BSA... you're damn right - he is living proof that lizards can use computers ;) Okay... I've done my bit, and that's all. Hope this child can input what I have written, otherwise it's pointless replying to him. Maybe it's just because I'm bored? :D

thrawn you are a idiot and a absolote toss, you think your so good but you not, you know your wrong.

and bsa, i wouldnt be calling me a lizard you sheep.

Thrawn

13 Mar 2002, 15:09

thrawn you are a idiot and a absolote toss

Why? Because I don't agree with you? Get a bloody life you moron.

you think your so good but you not, you know your wrong.

Sorry, I don't have that attitude. You're saying this because you can't hack being wrong. Live and learn.

and bsa, i wouldnt be calling me a lizard you sheep.

I'll let BSA handle this ;)

... Okay, I'm sick of this childish charade. I'll stop replying to you MrBoy, just because you can't seem to answer my questions, or debate this interesting issue in a proper manner. This is turning into an insult-fest, so I won't let you drag me down to your level.

As a wise BigFooty scribe once stated:

"Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Bloodstained Angel

13 Mar 2002, 15:10

ewww another cheap shot God / MrBoy or whoever you are ?

nice one, real class act aren't you ?

God

13 Mar 2002, 15:11

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
ewww another cheap shot God / MrBoy or whoever you are ?

nice one, real class act aren't you ?

yes i am

now thrawn, have a look at this link very closely

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/imm-a18_prn.shtml

Bee

13 Mar 2002, 19:00

Originally posted by God

and bee your hopeless

Coming from an illiterate cretin like you that is risible!

RogerC

13 Mar 2002, 20:19

Great. A serious and urgent topic has been reduced to a slanging match.

I think it all comes down to the question of what kind of country we want to live in. If our excuse for treating refugees badly is "they'd do it to us if we were over there," then what we're saying is that we're happy to behave like a Middle Eastern country. We're happy to be no better than Iraq. And we're just as happy to persecute the victims as well as the cause of persecution. I for one don't want to see this country go down that path.

My response to those who say "they broke the law" over and over again, is that Jews broke the law escaping Germany in the 1930s. Laws were broken in the French Revolution, while democracy was being established.

And a distinction should be drawn between what is unlawful and what is immoral. If anyone can truthfully say that the asylum seekers' actions were immoral, I'd be very surprised. Just as surprised as I would be to find someone say the Government's actions are moral.

What I get from the links is that the Australian Government is continually rejigging the law to make asylum seekers retrospective criminals.

Currently, the Howard Government is pulling all the strings it can to shield advisers from the inquiry. You have to ask why if, as Howard claims, he has nothing to hide. This Government is free to smear refugees all it likes, offer no apology when its claims are shown to be false, construct a firewall around its lies and innuendo, coerce helpless Pacific nations into housing refugees, and then bend over to be sodomised by the US at any and every occasion. Classic bully behaviour, cowardly and brutal and extremely immature. We're like the senior boys' fag at some private school.

Bomber Spirit

13 Mar 2002, 20:57

It's not an easy issue, but certainly insults and cheap shots don't do any good.
Arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee" doesn't automatically qualify someone to residence in Australia. If you were to do otherwise, there'd be no control at all and you may as well abolish the idea of needing passports or visas to enter the country. On the other hand, if a person arrives here who is genuinely fleeing an evil regime like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban, they need to be looked after.
If a person claims to be a refugee, their claims need to be checked. But the current process is too slow - it shouldn't take months or years. We need a system that processes claims a lot quicker than is currently the case.
While a person's claims are being processed, I don't see a viable alternative to detention. In the same way that people accused of criminal acts may be kept in remand until their case is heard, even though they are innocent until proven guilty, it has to happen in these cases. Otherwise, if their claims are rejected, it's difficult to deport them.
Of course when a claim is accepted; people should, and are, released from detention. But the length of time taken to determine the cases is far too long, which does lead to frustration. But that frustration doesn't justify the actions of some assylum seekers, which only hardens public opinion even further every time there's another incident.