Explain this to me

[Fat Red]

Mr Howard

I am from Afghanistan. When I was there, I was persecuted by the Taliban.

The Taliban are evil. You agree about this, because you are fighting a war against them.

So surely I am a genuine refugee? Why do you have to lock me up?

[mantis]

Gawd Fat Red, you are just itching for a fight today aren't you.:D

First that topic on the footy board & now this. :eek:

[Fat Red]

LOL, good pickup Mantis.:D

I'm enjoying the other one, btw;)

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Mr Howard

I am from Afghanistan. When I was there, I was persecuted by the Taliban.

The Taliban are evil. You agree about this, because you are fighting a war against them.

So surely I am a genuine refugee? Why do you have to lock me up?

I am from Afghanistan :)
When I was there, I was persecuted by the Taliban.
:)
The Taliban are evil.:( Nope, the Talban are muslim extremists.

You agree about this, because you are fighting a war against them.:( Nope......we are fighting a war against terorism. If Bin Laden had been surrendered and terrorist camps torn down there would not have been a war against the Taliban.

So surely I am a genuine refugee? :( How do I know you are not a Muslim extremist coming here with an extremist Muslim agenda?

Why do you have to lock me up?:rolleyes: Because we have an immigration system, we need to protect our citizens, there are millions who would like to come here...and why should you jump the queue? If you don't like the process then why don't yoo go home...the Taliban is histoty now!!!

[Frodo]

Originally posted by mantis
Gawd Fat Red, you are just itching for a fight today aren't you.:D

First that topic on the footy board & now this. :eek:

Gosh I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of input from Wormtongue:eek:

[Darky]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Mr Howard

I am from Afghanistan. When I was there, I was persecuted by the Taliban.

The Taliban are evil. You agree about this, because you are fighting a war against them.

So surely I am a genuine refugee? Why do you have to lock me up?

The question in my mind is not over letting in Afghan refugees, whom I consider genuine.

Given that all we have to base our opinions on are media reports (unless someone has inside sources somewhere), the coverage given to the refugee crisis is that many of them are not from Afghanistan.

When any sort of documentation which helps to authenticate identity and origin is absent (perhaps deliberately absent), how can one verify anything at all?

I am not fully aware of the extent of political instability in countries other than Afghansitan due to a general lack of media reports, so while not dismissing that other nationals might be genuine, it's a very hard puzzle to piece together.

[mantis]

Originally posted by Frodo


Gosh I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of input from Wormtongue:eek:

As opposed to your childish name calling trolls. :rolleyes:

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Frodo


If you don't like the process then why don't yoo go home...the Taliban is histoty now!!!

Because you have all bombed our country and innocent people into oblivion................we have no home.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Because you have all bombed our country and innocent people into oblivion................we have no home.

Interesting viewpoint.

Now if it were Australia that were bombed then I would be the first to want to come home and rebuild it.

And......Afghanistan and it's people bombed to oblivion? Hardly, well undere 1% of the population were killed or injured. Less than three months of killing and injuries that were LAW under the Taliban. Hardly oblivion.

Just maybe, along with millions of others, they see a far better life in Australia and want to queue jump. After all, who are they now running from in Afghanistan? Iraq, maybe.....some may have offended Saddam and to retuirn would put their life in peril, but not Afghanistan.

[1AD]

Originally posted by Frodo



Just maybe, along with millions of others, they see a far better life in Australia and want to queue jump. After all, who are they now running from in Afghanistan? Iraq, maybe.....some may have offended Saddam and to retuirn would put their life in peril, but not Afghanistan.

Explain then why out of the 12,000 "official" refugees taken in by Australia last year , just over half where from the former Yugolslavia (Bosnia etc).

Wher is the peril there now?
Are they different ?

Ask the SAS soldier that had half his foot blown off how safe Afghanistan is.

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Frodo


Interesting viewpoint.

Now if it were Australia that were bombed then I would be the first to want to come home and rebuild it.

And......Afghanistan and it's people bombed to oblivion? Hardly, well undere 1% of the population were killed or injured. Less than three months of killing and injuries that were LAW under the Taliban. Hardly oblivion.

Just maybe, along with millions of others, they see a far better life in Australia and want to queue jump. After all, who are they now running from in Afghanistan? Iraq, maybe.....some may have offended Saddam and to retuirn would put their life in peril, but not Afghanistan.

Firstly Frodo, if it were Australia we would have some sort of economy to put the pieces back together, Afghanistan does not.
Maybe they are still trying to escape the 'heroin producing, only marginally better than the Taliban' Norhtern Alliance government which is now the official USA sanctioned government?

[Pies rock]

I'm from a migrant background (France) and we all detest these refugees. My family went through hell when they lived in Egypt in the 50's when all the Europeans were being abused and killed for being in their country. However, they didn't jump on a boat and try and force their way into Australia. Why? Because it's unfair on thousands of others who are trying to do the right thing, do it fairly and not abuse the laws. These boat people are not genuine, they are sneaky, devious slime who should be turned away. The only way my family and myself can look at these people is with total and utter hatred. My family members were killed because of these types of people. They jump the queue which means it takes longer for the law abiding refugees to be processed and moved to their new country. Thus, they suffered for years longer than they should have. Anyone who feels sorrow for these bloody rotten bastards doesn't understand the whole situation...

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Pies rock
I'm from a migrant background (France) and we all detest these refugees. My family went through hell when they lived in Egypt in the 50's when all the Europeans were being abused and killed for being in their country. However, they didn't jump on a boat and try and force their way into Australia. Why? Because it's unfair on thousands of others who are trying to do the right thing, do it fairly and not abuse the laws. These boat people are not genuine, they are sneaky, devious slime who should be turned away. The only way my family and myself can look at these people is with total and utter hatred. My family members were killed because of these types of people. They jump the queue which means it takes longer for the law abiding refugees to be processed and moved to their new country. Thus, they suffered for years longer than they should have. Anyone who feels sorrow for these bloody rotten bastards doesn't understand the whole situation...

Sentence number 2 gives you away as not possibly seeing this with an open mind. How the hell does your families plight mean that anyone who feels sympathy for these people doesn't understand the situation?

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Pies rock
My family went through hell when they lived in Egypt in the 50's when all the Europeans were being abused and killed for being in their country. However, they didn't jump on a boat and try and force their way into Australia.

I don't want to be insensitive, but surely they didn't need to as they could go back to France?


Could you please explain how people getting on boats caused your family members to be killed, I don't understand the connection.

[stemline]

It is absolutely criminal that these people are being locked up under the conditions that they are in. There is no good excuse for the length of time they have been held captive. Their claims should be processed and their applications granted or denied.

The utter lack of any compassion by the Australian Goverment is shameful.
The Government's appealing to, and fuelling of, the worst trait of the community, homophobia, is disgusting.

It can't be an easy thing, it goes beyong simply 'jumping on a boat'. You have to be desperate as all hell. You are basically running for your life.

To say that you have a similar background, ie refugee, and then to say you have nothing but hatred and disgust for these people is incredibly hippocritical. Your lack of understanding, when in a position to understand their desperation, paints you in an ugly light.

The conditions they are held in now, where they are not allowed their own clothes, they are not allowed contact with people outside, women must queue openly for sanitary pads (coming from a culture where these things are extremely private, just shows the lack of human compassion being shown these people.

We are talking about children, held in a prison for years now. No trial, no charges. Just waiting.
The act of pulling strips of linnen through your lips with a piece of wire is not the act of a 'sneeky, devious slime', it is the act of a desperate people being treated like animals.

The kind of utter hatred being talked about here has no place in this country. To hate them for their desperation, when you were welcomed into this country with open arms, is wrong.

[Pies rock]

Originally posted by Fat Red


I don't want to be insensitive, but surely they didn't need to as they could go back to France?


Could you please explain how people getting on boats caused your family members to be killed, I don't understand the connection.

OK, firstly the situation was rather hostile at the time. The people that were moving them didn't exactly give them a 'free choice' which country they could go to. There was a war on in Egypt at the time (started just after they arrived) and the Arabs wanted all Europeans out of there, so they weren't exactly being treated well when they wre being deported. There were strict guidelines of what people moved out of the country and where they were going, so there was no way they would let them go back to France.

I had two great uncles killed because of the long delays in processing their departure. There were numerous groups at the time, the best were the ones that were moving them (altho they were far from nice), and they were planned to move straight away. However, there were a few that just wanted to kill and torture any European they could find (ethnic cleansing). Apparently there were boat people even back then who tried to jump the queue, and they had to halt everyone who was preparing to leave. About two weeks after they were meant to leave, they were hunted down and killed. Naturally, my family felt very angry towards these boat people, and similar incidents could be happening today. The delay because of the boat people meant two people very close to them were killed and it's probably happening at the moment. They don't deserve sorrow, they are putting thousands of other lives at risk, they can rot in hell for all I care. They should be entering the queue and not stopping others from leaving...

[topjars]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Mr Howard

I am from Afghanistan. When I was there, I was persecuted by the Taliban.

The Taliban are evil. You agree about this, because you are fighting a war against them.

So surely I am a genuine refugee? Why do you have to lock me up?

Little Johnny Replys....
Im sorry :confused: You're mumbling I cant hear a word you're saying.
Are you a Ventriloquist?:D

[Frodo]

Originally posted by stemline
It is absolutely criminal that these people are being locked up under the conditions that they are in. There is no good excuse for the length of time they have been held captive. .

Agreed.........they should have been sent back the day after they arrived. Stuff the processing and red tape...make it clear to the world...come to Australia illegally and you don't get a 'go to jail' card you just het sent back to 'go' immediately.

[Voice of Reason]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stemline
[B]It is absolutely criminal that these people are being locked up under the conditions that they are in. There is no good excuse for the length of time they have been held captive. Their claims should be processed and their applications granted or denied.[B]

This is a very emotional response that only looks at one side. All government processes take time. These people have entered the country illegally. You and I do not know the length of time compared to other "genuine" immigrants who have observed the correct process. The illegal immigrants have caused the conditions to deteriorate by wrecking the compounds (unless you are alleging a conspiracy where all that was made up or caused by Australian officials).

[B]The utter lack of any compassion by the Australian Goverment is shameful.
The Government's appealing to, and fuelling of, the worst trait of the community, homophobia, is disgusting..[B]

I don't like some of the views of some of the people in government either, but they have a difficult line to tread here. Why don't you recognise that?

[B]It can't be an easy thing, it goes beyong simply 'jumping on a boat'. You have to be desperate as all hell. You are basically running for your life.[B]

Agreed. Whether we should let despearate people who have no respect for our laws settle here permanently is very doubtful.

.[B]To say that you have a similar background, ie refugee, and then to say you have nothing but hatred and disgust for these people is incredibly hippocritical. Your lack of understanding, when in a position to understand their desperation, paints you in an ugly light..[B]

I'm an immigrant, but not a refugee, and I do have sympathy for them. However, I believe they should cooperate with our system.

.[B]The conditions they are held in now, where they are not allowed their own clothes, they are not allowed contact with people outside, women must queue openly for sanitary pads (coming from a culture where these things are extremely private, just shows the lack of human compassion being shown these people..[B]

I don't think you know much about the society they came from. Sanitory pads were and are an absolute luxury if they come from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or even Russia.

.[B]We are talking about children, held in a prison for years now. No trial, no charges. Just waiting.
The act of pulling strips of linnen through your lips with a piece of wire is not the act of a 'sneeky, devious slime', it is the act of a desperate people being treated like animals..[B]

I find this self-mutilation extremely disturbing. Everyone must take responsibliility for their own actions.

.[B]The kind of utter hatred being talked about here has no place in this country. To hate them for their desperation, when you were welcomed into this country with open arms, is wrong. .[B]

Agreed

[mantis]

Originally posted by Frodo


Agreed.........they should have been sent back the day after they arrived. Stuff the processing and red tape...make it clear to the world...come to Australia illegally and you don't get a 'go to jail' card you just het sent back to 'go' immediately.

Another very caring post from frodo, if he had his way, we would be living back in the days of medieval England, with the Lords of the land & the Serfs working for nothing & definitely no non aglo saxons allowed in the country.

Wonder what would have happened if the Aboriginals had of been able to apply those rules like frodo wants, where would most of us be now.
Where would the shiploads of convicts been allowed to land, not in Australia, guess they would have been sent back to England for execution for stealing a loaf of bread because their family was starving.

Waiting for the typical frodo juvenile reply of stupid bitch or childish name calling. :rolleyes:

[Mobbenfuhrer]

How long is the processing actually taking?

[B-Line]

Maybe we're doin the kids a favour by getting rid of some of the old pervs....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44067,00.html

[Frodo]

Originally posted by mantis


Another very caring post from frodo, if he had his way, we would be living back in the days of medieval England, with the Lords of the land & the Serfs working for nothing & definitely no non aglo saxons allowed in the country.

Wonder what would have happened if the Aboriginals had of been able to apply those rules like frodo wants, where would most of us be now.
Where would the shiploads of convicts been allowed to land, not in Australia, guess they would have been sent back to England for execution for stealing a loaf of bread because their family was starving.

Waiting for the typical frodo juvenile reply of stupid bitch or childish name calling. :rolleyes:

Didn't have to wait long ,Wormtonge did you :D Now why can you, in your very mature way :rolleyes:, refer to me as Gollum ( real name Smeagol) and in the same breath call me juvenile for referring to you as another character out of Lord of the rings?

Not that you have read the book or even seen the movie so talking from your rear is once again your persuasion.

Now to refute this last rubbish. In medieval times the country had heaps of imigrants in England from all over Europe. In fact English was never spoken at court, only French and Latin.

As for your Aboriginal amusement there can be no doubt that Europeans took Australia as Terra Nullis. The aboriginal community of the time was so small as to be relatively insignificant. I am sure that if at the time of colonisation the Aboriginals had been a significant race then history would have been more like the american Indian situation........but is wasn't.

And again, Sandie, there must be more to life than just trolling in every thread I post to :mad:

[mantis]

Trolling, look who is talking the King of trolls, plus I wasn't trolling, I was replying to an uncaring post by yourself on the plight of the refugees, but I forgot, no one is allowed to post if their views differ to yours. :mad:

Oh & I read Lord of the rings when I was a kid, I have moved on to more adult reading material though now.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Frodo

Please define 'a significant race':confused:

cheers

[Blues_Brat]

There are two sides to this argument, I have a friend who is now working in the Immigration Dept in Canberra and the main reason for the delay in processing peoples applications is the fact they are destroying their identity documents before arriving in this country. It is hard to prove their identities.

The application process is a long one, she was telling me the story of a man in Ghana who is stuck there in a refugee camp and he has gone through all the right channels of getting to Australia. He has been in the same situation for EIGHT years.

Even though the processing of applications needs to take place, I can't agree with the policy of keeping these people behind razor wire, we never did this in the past to refugees/migrants. Surely there is a way of keeping these people in one place, in humane conditions and not a jail like situation? The refugees shouldn't expect to be thrown in prison, but they must also understand that they cannot arrive on our shores and then be put straight into a house in suburbia. Migrants in the past didn't get that privelege either.

Footnote: The rioting at the detention centres is being perpetrated by people who have had their applications rejected.

[Fat Red]

originally posted by Voice of Reason
Agreed. Whether we should let despearate people who have no respect for our laws settle here permanently is very doubtful.

Such as the people who started this country?

[Sydneyfan]

Before 1788, it's been estimated that the population of Australia was probably around 300, 000 (similar to the population of Australian Aborigines today, which is around 1.5% of the total Australian population), and could have been up to 1 million.

The Native American population today is only around the 1.5 million mark (not too many considering over 270 million people live in the US, less than 0.5% of the total population). So if I apply the same scenario as with Australia before colonisation, there were probably about the same number of Native Americans then as there is now. There may have a large Native American population before European colonisation, maybe up to 5 million but not as high as 10 million.

Considering that continental United States has a marginally larger area than Australia, the population density of what is now USA would have been larger than what is now Australia, 2 or 3 (maybe up to 5) times higher, but not incredibly so.

Even if the population of Australia before 1788 was insignificant, it was still no justification at all for Europeans labelling the place Terra Nullis.


P.S.

As for the Refugee debate,

I believe that we Australians (either being born here or permanently settling here), have drawn a very lucky straw in the great lottery of life, and believe that we should be able to accommodate more refugees without too many detrimental affects on our way of life. If you think Australia's a redneck, bigoted place now imagine what it would be like if wasn't for the waves of immigrants to our shores since the end of WW2! :eek:
I shudder to think! ;)

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by Fat Red


Such as the people who started this country?

Sorry Red, I don't think I understand what you mean - could you explain please?

[RogerC]

Just a quick reply to Voice of Reason.

I don't think Stemline's post was particularly emotional. If you want to look at emotive language, you don't need to go past our own Government. The talk coming from certain members of the Liberal party over the "throwing children into the water" incident bordered on the hysterical. None of these wild claims were ever substantiated, and yet most of the actions taken subsequent to this incident took the claims for granted. This was an appalling slur, and the starting point for most of the "we don't want these kind of people in our country" quotes that followed.

Referring to them as 'illegal immigrants" is misleading - and I hope we don't need to go over all that again. "Queue jumpers" is another one, a vaguely snide poke at a people fleeing a country in such a way as to make standing in a queue (or however you picture it) impossible.

The lip sewing incident is another one that's been given the Ruddock spin. Note how carefully he avoids giving actual figures for the numbers that have sewn their lips shut. Especially for the children involved. Almost all his comments have included the phrases "on the information I have recieved", "it has been reported that", "if these claims are true, then...". Never facts, just hearsay of the kind you or I are getting from the media.

The facts are that they don't really know how many children are involved, and they don't want to know, because the story is so much more lurid than the facts. One child has been confirmed, but there is no information as to the age of this child - could be as old as 16. But the important part, as far as the Government is concerned, is that we all have an image of the refugees as disgraceful parents.

Keeping the media out of Woomera, and all facilities, means that all the information we get comes straight from Ruddock and co. We know their agenda, and so we have a right to be distrustful.

Xenophobia is nothing new, in any country, and in that light I understand the attitude of some towards the refugees. But when a Government deliberately exploits this attitude for political gain, demonises those who disagree with them and defends a situation that is easily avoidable (mainly through bettering the conditions the refugees are held under, welcoming media scrutiny, and attempting to find a long term solution through negotiations with countries such as Indonesia), it's little wonder so many people become angry.

Last point. Asking for refuge in a country, and landing on the shore to do so, breaks no laws. We have a right to process their claims, but we have an obligation to look after them while we do so. So let's have less talk about so-called lawbreakers, ok?

[red+black]

I take this without permission from a post on The Age's discussion forum (author's name - Clive Thomas):

"For those who thought the asylum seeker issue involved many complex issues for Australia's foreign policy we now have the simple version as laid down by the former ALP adviser Natasha Cica as laid out in Wednesday's The Age.

Firstly it's important to label the two distinct camps in this issue. There are the Compassionates - those who care so deeply about others - and the Xenophobes - those who only care about themselves and preserving their own little piece of paradise. And its easy to identify your affiliation - if you want open slather acceptance of asylum seekers into the community you are in the Compassionate camp. For those of you that have concerns about this approach - you join the Xenophobe camp. Its quite simple really. And it avoids having to debate the issues if we can simply attach the label and know immediately who the goodies and baddies are.

And if there's any confusion about your camp - well Xenophobes like 'neater lawns' and 'leaders in the style of Pat Rafter' and attend 'barbies and dinner parties'. Is it some English connection or a preference for sporting heroes that puts you in that camp? Maybe dining with friends is an indicator?

On the other hand Natasha belongs in the Compassionates camp because she likes 'open society' and 'tolerant multiculturalism'. That can get a bit confusing. What if your good friends next door are Vietnamese neighbours, your best buddy at work is an Indian colleague and you spend most of your spare time with your Italian mate but, you're not so sure about illegal immigrants being allowed into the country ? Well you may have thought you were multicultural - but you're not ! Your opinion on the asylum seekers issue is the definitive key. You may even be racist and you dont even know it!

And just in case you thought you had the intelligence to make an informed decision and the moral integrity to make a fair one - Natasha reminds us that as part of 'our society' you are 'morally depleted and lacking sense and sensibility' on the issue so you probably wont be able to come to a fair decision anyway.

Hopefully that clears up the asylum issue. As it should for Mr Crean. He already has an 'elite' advisor of superior moral standing who can summarise such issues with great clarity. Thank goodness the left can tell us so clearly about what is right !"

[Bloodstained Angel]

yes it is fortunate that The Left can tell us what is right and what is wrong because The Right certainly have alot of trouble picking the differeence !

cheers

[London Dave]

excatly BSA

[Fat Red]

Lol, reminds me of the posters on the Simpsons at policitical conventions:

Democrats: 'We hate life and ourselves'; 'We're not fit to govern'

Republicans: 'We want what's worst for everyone'; 'We're just plain evil'

[mantis]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Republicans: 'We want what's worst for everyone'; 'We're just plain evil'

Sounds like something Little Johnny would say. :eek:

[Frodo]

Originally posted by mantis


Sounds like something Little Johnny would say. :eek:


Nice Troll Wormtongue, and we have never been in any doubt of your hated for Liberals as is the case of quiter a few lefties here who enjoy group reinforcement of their socialist mono-occulism.

But in reality, in such days of twisted politics where labour can have policies more right wing than Liberals it comes down to personality rather than party for who would be aligned to the Simpsons 'quote'

No Labour or Liberal leader can I think of that would fit the bill of "'We want what's worst for everyone'; 'We're just plain evil' " than Paul Keating.....surely the most evil, scurrilous anti-Australian leader ever.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Frodo

Please define 'a significant race':confused:

cheers


Just for you BA, to satisfy your penchant for exactism .............


'a significant race' (sentence, frodoism, circa 2002)




A race that is significant (eg Olympic 100m final)

:eek:

[Frodo]

Originally posted by mantis

Oh & I read Lord of the rings when I was a kid, I have moved on to more adult reading material though now.

Pretty stupid post Wormtongue. Most academics agree with the authour that the Hobbit was for children and LOTR for adults. In fact Tolkien wrote LOTR in segments and sent them to his son who was in the army in wartime......I would hardly call his son a kid.

I would also challenge your claim that you read LOTR as a kid. Certainly not beyond the claims of a super high IQ kid but you would hardly fit that bill, would you?

And of course your insult automatically flies in the face of the millions of adults reading LOTR today.........silly girl.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by RogerC
Just a quick reply to Voice of Reason.

I don't think Stemline's post was particularly emotional. If you want to look at emotive language, you don't need to go past our own Government. The talk coming from certain members of the Liberal party over the "throwing children into the water" incident bordered on the hysterical. None of these wild claims were ever substantiated, and yet most of the actions taken subsequent to this incident took the claims for granted. This was an appalling slur, and the starting point for most of the "we don't want these kind of people in our country" quotes that followed.

Referring to them as 'illegal immigrants" is misleading - and I hope we don't need to go over all that again. "Queue jumpers" is another one, a vaguely snide poke at a people fleeing a country in such a way as to make standing in a queue (or however you picture it) impossible.

The lip sewing incident is another one that's been given the Ruddock spin. Note how carefully he avoids giving actual figures for the numbers that have sewn their lips shut. Especially for the children involved. Almost all his comments have included the phrases "on the information I have recieved", "it has been reported that", "if these claims are true, then...". Never facts, just hearsay of the kind you or I are getting from the media.

The facts are that they don't really know how many children are involved, and they don't want to know, because the story is so much more lurid than the facts. One child has been confirmed, but there is no information as to the age of this child - could be as old as 16. But the important part, as far as the Government is concerned, is that we all have an image of the refugees as disgraceful parents.

Keeping the media out of Woomera, and all facilities, means that all the information we get comes straight from Ruddock and co. We know their agenda, and so we have a right to be distrustful.

Xenophobia is nothing new, in any country, and in that light I understand the attitude of some towards the refugees. But when a Government deliberately exploits this attitude for political gain, demonises those who disagree with them and defends a situation that is easily avoidable (mainly through bettering the conditions the refugees are held under, welcoming media scrutiny, and attempting to find a long term solution through negotiations with countries such as Indonesia), it's little wonder so many people become angry.

Last point. Asking for refuge in a country, and landing on the shore to do so, breaks no laws. We have a right to process their claims, but we have an obligation to look after them while we do so. So let's have less talk about so-called lawbreakers, ok?

I think Stemline's post is very emotional and I think that some members of the government do pander to the worst instincts of Australians who feel threatened. But I am the VoR and so I can see both sides, whether Xenophobes or Compassionates, and see that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The absence of facts in this matter is problematic, as it is in every issue in public life, because from just about every story in the media on which I have personal knowledge (eg The Age, the Herald-Sun and the West Australian) has been materially false, either by factual error or omission. I don't think that this issue is worse off for facts than most others, except that I believe the media should be allowed in Woomera and it was disturbing to see them excluded by soldiers and ssecurity people.

I saw someone's lips sewn together on TV. This may have been an incorrect report. If true, I can't justify it - can you?

By queue-jumper, I refer to the expectation that someone who enters the country illegally (and it is illegal to enter the country without going through customs, having your passport checked, having a visa etc) can expect to be allowed permanent rights of residence quicker than someone who has gone through the correct channels to achieve the same end. That to me is queue-jumping.

We have an Immigration Dept whose job it is to prioritise the entry of people to this country. I am simply suggesting that this is a sensible precaution and that everyone should be treated equally. I am not generalising about anybody - disgraceful parents or anything else - in fact the problem is that each case has to be dealt with on its merits on very little evidence. So each individual has to be assessed. I'd welcome anyone to Australia who wants to settle here permanently, obey our laws, work hard, raise a family, watch footy, go bush and farm, whatever they want to do. I don't welcome terrorists, organised crime etc. The immigration process seeks to establish eligibility, but it takes time.

Now, perspective on the issue. The numbers of people who make it this far to Australia are tiny in global terms. Absolutely tiny. There are more trying to get through the Channel Tunnel in a week than there are coming here in a year. So we have a relatively little problem that is being over-reported and has ridiculously extreme comments being made on both sides. I'm not a fan of the current detention system. There must be a better way of dealing with it and once I know what it is, I'll get back to you.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by stemline
The utter lack of any compassion by the Australian Goverment is shameful.
The Government's appealing to, and fuelling of, the worst trait of the community, homophobia, is disgusting.


Homophobia?:confused: Oh....maybe the reason they are taking so long to process them is that it is taking some time to sort out the refugee's float in this years G&L Mardi Gras!:D

No Abdullah! I'M wearing the pink sequened turban...

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
yes it is fortunate that The Left can tell us what is right and what is wrong because The Right certainly have alot of trouble picking the differeence !

cheers

When did the ALP return to the left?;)

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Frodo has conveniently ignored the thorough deconstruction of his assertion that there is "no doubt" that Terra Nullis applied in the 1788 invasion. His only response has been to flippantly and callously dismiss a legitimate inquiry into a definition he applied to an entire race of people. The expression "insignificant race", combined with a complete lack of justification or definition of the term, is perhaps the most reprehensible thing I've read on these pages.

[mantis]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Frodo has conveniently ignored the thorough deconstruction of his assertion that there is "no doubt" that Terra Nullis applied in the 1788 invasion. His only response has been to flippantly and callously dismiss a legitimate inquiry into a definition he applied to an entire race of people. The expression "insignificant race", combined with a complete lack of justification or definition of the term, is perhaps the most reprehensible thing I've read on these pages.

DCFC

Be fair to frods, he has more important things on his mind, ME.:D he hasn't got time to explain what his definition of a "significant race" is.:rolleyes:

[Bloodstained Angel]

Frodo

your reply is a flippant brush-off, but hey I did get a laugh out of it !!!

If you want to avoid the question, fine.

But please be told - using a term like 'significant race' is, ummmm, pretty provocative to say the least.

and if can't tell me just what 'a significant race' is, then perhaps you better choose your word a little more carefully in future hey ?

cheers

[Bloodstained Angel]

Briedis

I wasn't talking about the ALP when referring to "The Left"

There is nothing "Left Wing" about the ALP at all, and there hasn't been since Doc Evatt led the party - 50 years ago.

cheers

[wagstaff]

As was referred to in an earlier post, it seems that the standard dividing point in the refugee issue is either xenophobes v compassionates or true blue aussies v chardonny socialists.

To me, the division is more complex then that.

The main reason that the government's "tough stance" on boat people has registered as much support as it has is because, with the help of the media, they've successfully managed to stigmatise them as 'queue jumpers'. In other words, they've manged to plant the idea in the minds of many that these people are taking the spots of genuine refugees.

Of course, the issue of racism with regards to people from the Middle East and S-E Asia also plays a part, but it's only subtle and rather sub-consicous. The government couldn't make the basis for its 'refugee policy' a throwback to the 'White Australia' policy because the vast majority of the public wouldn't accept it and also the government's business interests in S-E Asia and the Middle East would be in jeporady.

Contrary to what many believe, That Anglo-Australian rednecks are the ones against the asylum-seekers living here because they don't like that type of race of people is generally wrong. Australia is now a multi-ethnic and multi-racail society so therefore for the government's policy to have as much public support as it does would mean that it has support not just among Anglos but Australians of many races and another country, born here or in another country.

Then there is the question of why the government's policy still has a significant amount of support. One reason is that it received bipartisan support from their supposed political opponents, the ALP. This shouldn't be surprising as they initated much of the policy that the current government has in their last term in office. When an issue in politics sees the same opinions expressed from all major parties, the discussion on the issue is inevitably going to be limited and the general popualtion is going to be severely limited in what information and ideas it has easy access to. Such is the case here.

Then there are those who are against the government's stance like business leaders, churches and certain limited sections of the media and politics. In truth, while they claim to be concerned about how these asylum seekers are being mistreated, they're more concerned about how they're own self-interest and the 'national interest' is being mistreated. Certainly some business people are deeply concerned about how this issue dredges up references to teh 'White Australia Policy' amongst major corporations located in the Asian region.

This is borne out by constant statements about how more "compassion" should be shown towards asylum seekers; in other words be more publicly compassionate so it improve's Australia's image but if they aren't economically viable to be kept here, then send them home.

While there are some exceptions to these perspectives, this is the very limited debate that is occurring in the public sphere at the moment.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Briedis

I wasn't talking about the ALP when referring to "The Left"

There is nothing "Left Wing" about the ALP at all, and there hasn't been since Doc Evatt led the party - 50 years ago.

cheers

Sorry mate. I must have gotton confused with you replying to a post about an ALP advisor and Simon Creen. Who did you mean?

And yes, my joke down the same line as the supposed left-wing of the ALP is so far right that it IS a joke in itself....;)

[Frodo]

Well I'll give you my reasoning for this quote

"I am sure that if at the time of colonisation the Aboriginals had been a significant race then history would have been more like the american Indian situation........but is wasn't."


I guess words have differing meanings amongst the English speaking in the world but my interpretation of "signigicant" = "important", and I do not think that at the time of colonisation that aboriginals were considered important at all. They posed no threat unlike the American Indians where there was a war against the whiteman.

Contextual criticism is far better than 'word baiting'

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Frodo
Well I'll give you my reasoning for this quote

"I am sure that if at the time of colonisation the Aboriginals had been a significant race then history would have been more like the american Indian situation........but is wasn't."


I guess words have differing meanings amongst the English speaking in the world but my interpretation of "signigicant" = "important", and I do not think that at the time of colonisation that aboriginals were considered important at all. They posed no threat unlike the American Indians where there was a war against the whiteman.

Contextual criticism is far better than 'word baiting'

Your still saying that a whole race of people were insignificant and I therefore believe that your saying the attempted genocide which followed the European settlement was justified because the Aboriginals posed 'no threat' or were not considered important by Europeans.

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

I'd go along with that summation.

As far as I can tell, you justify one invasion because of the "insignificant" custodians, yet decry the attempts of others to invade the same land 215 years later.

It must be because we're so "significant".

[Frodo]

In for a penny, in for a pound...........................

One day the facts of aboriginal history will surface above the litany of groundless or exaggerated rubbish that is written and taught today. Until then it is left to the few who dare to challenge the propaganda to put forward their views and cop the lambastment sweet.

Are aboriginals directly descendant from forefathers born here or were they migrants from Asia? Migrants such as many white people are?
Were they a single nation or a group of around 500 tribes, each associated with its own language and stretch of territory? In which case 'aboriginal' is more like 'European', not one people but many. And in which case which people are aggrieved and in what ways (surely differing)? ie saying 'sorry' to aboriginals is a gross generalisation.

According to history "The aborigines killed a number of the settlers and even wounded Captain Phillip in an attack. The settlers reacted by slaughtering and poisoning the aborigines".
How would history have panned out if that first attack had not happenned. It was this event that singly tainted the aboriginals as barbaric.

Were they the great tenderers of the land who settled into communities or were they just nomads without true homes. History says " The Aborigines were not natural cultivators of the land - fertile land was obviously scarce - and Australia (before the European colonisation) had no animals suitable for herding, so the Aborigines lived by hunting and gathering food"

So here we have 300,000 people belonging to 500 different peoples all living in a country they migrated to which is 5 times larger than Europe where hundereds of millions of people lived (and also had different languages). And just as the Gypsies of Europe had no lands of their own due to their nomadic lifestyle so why should aboriginal nomads be different? Or Should the Gypsies of Europe be able to claim developed land that they once occassionally parked their caravans upon.

What do we understand by 'terra nullis'? Well it's not an Australian thing. There are heaps of terra nullis debates concerning many peoples worldwide. What needs to be understood is the meaning of terra nullis in 1788...not now!!!

In effect land being colonized was assessed as to whether any true communities were present which had applicable standards of the time.( For example if man had landed on the moon and found a few neanderthol beings living in caves nomadically the moon may well have been declared terra nullis although no doubt some time after the moon was colonised the aboriginal moonmen would have been claiming the moon as their own and the first Americans to land there as invaders). In the case of Australia such communities were not found to exist and so the common term was used.

I challenge any person to claim that had they been amongst the first settlers, had been attacked by nomadic tribes and could not see any form of community or cohesion amongst these people and had seen no sign of the establishment of agriculture, livestock etc that they would not have agreed 100% to Australia being Terra nullis.

Of course more than 200 years on we can look at it with rose coloured spectacles but I believe that decision was correct.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Your still saying that a whole race of people were insignificant and I therefore believe that your saying the attempted genocide which followed the European settlement was justified because the Aboriginals posed 'no threat' or were not considered important by Europeans.

I am saying nothing of the sort. I am saying what I believe the settlers thought at the time. I am also saying that the aboriginals were not one race but 500 races. I do not accept the genocide theory and would not condone it if i did.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
I'd go along with that summation.

As far as I can tell, you justify one invasion because of the "insignificant" custodians, yet decry the attempts of others to invade the same land 215 years later.

It must be because we're so "significant".

bandwaggonning is not really 'going along with suggestions'

Firstly I don't believe any invasion took place. It was colonisation. Secondly, you are correct, we are considered a significant people whereas in 1778 aboriginal tribes were not.

An yes, I decry and will fight to defend Australia from invasion.

I guess I'd have to do it for both of us, Chook

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

You'll neither speak nor act for me.

It's very easy to excuse/explain/justify actions by playing the "context" card. It's what primary school children do. "They started it". "Everyone else is doing it". I thought that we grew out of that when we *ahem* matured - apparently not.

According to history "The aborigines killed a number of the settlers and even wounded Captain Phillip in an attack. The settlers reacted by slaughtering and poisoning the aborigines".
How would history have panned out if that first attack had not happenned. It was this event that singly tainted the aboriginals as barbaric. That little spiel is self-serving and misleading. You're such a fan of context, put these 'attacks' into the context of the custodians - suddenly all of these unfamiliar people roll up and just starting moving in on your territory. What do you do? Defend yourselves and your territory? Well, that's what you'd do isn't it? It's what you're claiming to do now, over 200 years further into alleged civilisation.

As for "this event ... singly tainting the aboriginals as barbaric", that's a handy generalisation to usher in a century long dose of genocide. As they say, history is written by the winners.

As I said, don't bother thinking, talking or acting for me in this situation. I'll have no part of the priveleged taking the disenfranchised for a ride yet again.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
You'll neither speak nor act for me.

It's very easy to excuse/explain/justify actions by playing the "context" card. It's what primary school children do. "They started it". "Everyone else is doing it". I thought that we grew out of that when we *ahem* matured - apparently not.

That little spiel is self-serving and misleading. You're such a fan of context, put these 'attacks' into the context of the custodians - suddenly all of these unfamiliar people roll up and just starting moving in on your territory. What do you do? Defend yourselves and your territory? Well, that's what you'd do isn't it? It's what you're claiming to do now, over 200 years further into alleged civilisation.

As for "this event ... singly tainting the aboriginals as barbaric", that's a handy generalisation to usher in a century long dose of genocide. As they say, history is written by the winners.

As I said, don't bother thinking, talking or acting for me in this situation. I'll have no part of the priveleged taking the disenfranchised for a ride yet again.


Wow, what a load of political brainwashed hogwash, did I hit a nerve :eek:

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Frodo



Wow, what a load of political brainwashed hogwash, did I hit a nerve :eek:

I believe it is you Frodo who has been brainwashed into believing 'untruths'. I read your spiel and it reminds me of the far right-wing belief that the holocaust never happend.
European settlers placed Aboriginal people below all other 'savages' that they had encountered during years of colonisation and believed that they (aboriginals) were there to be used or disposed of just like they (Europeans) believed the land was there to be used and abused as required.
I can't speak for DCFC, but you the only raw nerve you hit with me is your refusal to acknowledge facts. The Europeans did set out to wipe the Aboriginal people from Australia. Tasmania was the first, and thankfully last, area to carry out the idea.

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Briedis

I wasn't talking about the ALP when referring to "The Left"

There is nothing "Left Wing" about the ALP at all, and there hasn't been since Doc Evatt led the party - 50 years ago.

cheers

Disagree, Gough Whitlam's government was arguably the most "left leaning" in ALP history.

Sure there was a lot of catch up work to do after the barren Menzies years, nevertheless the reforms Whitlam introduced were breathtaking in scope and scale.

These reforms (aboriginal rights, the abolition of conscription, introduction of welfare payments for single parent families, the expunging of the last vestiges of the White Australia policy etc) mark the Whitlam government as one of the great reforming leftie govts. in our history.

Great man was/is Gough.

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Frodo
In for a penny, in for a pound...........................

One day the facts of aboriginal history will surface above the litany of groundless or exaggerated rubbish that is written and taught today. Until then it is left to the few who dare to challenge the propaganda to put forward their views and cop the lambastment sweet.

Are aboriginals directly descendant from forefathers born here or were they migrants from Asia? Migrants such as many white people are?
Were they a single nation or a group of around 500 tribes, each associated with its own language and stretch of territory? In which case 'aboriginal' is more like 'European', not one people but many. And in which case which people are aggrieved and in what ways (surely differing)? ie saying 'sorry' to aboriginals is a gross generalisation.

According to history "The aborigines killed a number of the settlers and even wounded Captain Phillip in an attack. The settlers reacted by slaughtering and poisoning the aborigines".
How would history have panned out if that first attack had not happenned. It was this event that singly tainted the aboriginals as barbaric.

Were they the great tenderers of the land who settled into communities or were they just nomads without true homes. History says " The Aborigines were not natural cultivators of the land - fertile land was obviously scarce - and Australia (before the European colonisation) had no animals suitable for herding, so the Aborigines lived by hunting and gathering food"

So here we have 300,000 people belonging to 500 different peoples all living in a country they migrated to which is 5 times larger than Europe where hundereds of millions of people lived (and also had different languages). And just as the Gypsies of Europe had no lands of their own due to their nomadic lifestyle so why should aboriginal nomads be different? Or Should the Gypsies of Europe be able to claim developed land that they once occassionally parked their caravans upon.

What do we understand by 'terra nullis'? Well it's not an Australian thing. There are heaps of terra nullis debates concerning many peoples worldwide. What needs to be understood is the meaning of terra nullis in 1788...not now!!!

In effect land being colonized was assessed as to whether any true communities were present which had applicable standards of the time.( For example if man had landed on the moon and found a few neanderthol beings living in caves nomadically the moon may well have been declared terra nullis although no doubt some time after the moon was colonised the aboriginal moonmen would have been claiming the moon as their own and the first Americans to land there as invaders). In the case of Australia such communities were not found to exist and so the common term was used.

I challenge any person to claim that had they been amongst the first settlers, had been attacked by nomadic tribes and could not see any form of community or cohesion amongst these people and had seen no sign of the establishment of agriculture, livestock etc that they would not have agreed 100% to Australia being Terra nullis.

Of course more than 200 years on we can look at it with rose coloured spectacles but I believe that decision was correct.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately antagonistic or just plain ignorant...

There are disturbing overtones of the nutcase historian David Irving to this post.

Regardless of where the aborigines descended from (many historians do suggest Asia which is hardly surprising) or their tribal make up, the simple fact is that the advent of European settlement meant a severe dislocation to their tradtional way of life, to death,disease and disposession. Sounds fair huh?

They were not gypsies, they laid claims to all parts of Australia, any "roaming" was within a generally small area. Tribes tended to congregate in one particular region and stayed there for years, wandering essentially for food (and returning).

Terra Nullis was a legal fiction used by the British Crown as an expedient means of dealing with the aboriginal "problem". The Mabo decision rightly rejected Terra Nullis.

NB: If you are going to use quotes, try acknowledging the source at the same time, you wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism would you...

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Pretty standard effort Frodo - can't keep up in the argument so make it personal - "politically brainwashed hogwash" would that be anything you disagree with? Stick to the issue.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


I believe it is you Frodo who has been brainwashed into believing 'untruths'. I read your spiel and it reminds me of the far right-wing belief that the holocaust never happend.
European settlers placed Aboriginal people below all other 'savages' that they had encountered during years of colonisation and believed that they (aboriginals) were there to be used or disposed of just like they (Europeans) believed the land was there to be used and abused as required.
I can't speak for DCFC, but you the only raw nerve you hit with me is your refusal to acknowledge facts. The Europeans did set out to wipe the Aboriginal people from Australia. Tasmania was the first, and thankfully last, area to carry out the idea.

Firstly, the holocaust was real and I have studied it quite a lot.
Secondly which other 'savages' are you taliking about?
Thirgly, assimilation was a policy...genocide was not. Show me any government document where genocide was agereed policy...all are released under foc. put up or shut up.

Finaly, aboriginal history is a subject of considerable debate and disagreement. What matters most is how we go forward and handle the situation to the benefit of all. Now I open my views to all, yet it is a rare event for anyone else to do other than snipe or put together a politically correct narration which does not express their true thoughts.

I offer this challenge tp all. Post your solution to reconciliation. Allow me to see your true thoughts and respond to how I believe your solution would go.

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

My thoughts on reconciliation:

Most definitely a two way street. There's no point in Anglos attempting to right the wrongs of the past if the Aboginal population is not receptive to the efforts.
The first thing that must be done is for the Anglo/Non-Aboriginal population to come to terms with, accept and (in one way or another) apologise for the systematic abuse of the Aboriginal race (or races) over the first two centuries of colonisation
The Aboriginal population should make assurances that any such "apology" is not used as a trigger for wholesale compensation claims - this would be as divisive as any action on the other side
Anglos to seek to gain an understanding and tolerance of Aboriginal customs and beliefs
Aborigines to elect a representative and useful council to govern their dealings with the Commonwealth
And most importantly, human beings to start treating each other as equals, rather than discriminating on stupid, superficial differences

[Joe Mama]

Good post, DCFC. But I think that you've used the term "Anglo" inaccurately.

First of all, the British are a mixture of Celtic, Pict, Briton, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Viking and Norman peoples who have settled in the British Isles since the time of the settlement of Scara Brae (anyone who has watched the SBS series, "A History of Britain" would know this), and to use the term "Anglo" to describe people who are of British/Irish ancestry is insulting to those whose ancestors were Cornish, Manx, Welsh, Scottish and Irish, who are for the most part Celtic, a more accurate term for you to use in this situation is "Anglo/Celtic", thus to avoid confusion.

And, Frodo, just ignore all those who crap all over everything you post here, you are a good antidote to the left wingers like BSA, Joffa and Dr Alf Andrews, and provide balance to any debates like this one, so keep up the good work .;)

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen
Good post, DCFC. But I think that you've used the term "Anglo" inaccurately.

First of all, the British are a mixture of Celtic, Pict, Briton, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Viking and Norman peoples who have settled in the British Isles since the time of the settlement of Scara Brae (anyone who has watched the SBS series, "A History of Britain" would know this), and to use the term "Anglo" to describe people who are of British/Irish ancestry is insulting to those whose ancestors were Cornish, Manx, Welsh, Scottish and Irish, who are for the most part Celtic, a more accurate term for you to use in this situation is "Anglo/Celtic", thus to avoid confusion.


Very true - glad someone else has noticed this in Australia. It seems people will either term you as Anglo or Anglo - Saxon. But why is this? This only covers the two tribes from Germany, the Angles and Saxons.

I am most definitely not an Anglo - Saxon, but rather an Anglo - Celt. Not a big issue I know, but I like to hear the term Anglo/Celtic used (of course, I dunno where this leaves the vikings, jutes picts and normans but I'm not one of them so who cares?;) )

P.S. Mark - you should be especially careful with your terminology in the future due to the O' at the beginning of your surname:)

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Yes, I was going to use the term "non-Aboriginal", but I was lazy. Points taken gents.

[RogerC]

Voice of Reason; sorry to take so long to get back to you on this, but until I'm back on line permanently I only have a couple of hours a week to scroll through everything.

What you say makes a lot of sense. I only picked on your post because up to that point you seemed the most likely to give a reasoned argument.

I may have misled you in my comments about lips being sewn up. I was only referring to children there. I'm sure many adults did sew their lips, but the constant suggestions of children being made to sew their's by their parents hasn't been borne out with any facts yet.

I can't justify lip-sewing. All I can say about it is that it is a desperate act. It's not the act of someone who, for instance, can't get the job they want, or feels a minor grievance. It is an result of a certain level of hopelessness, a belief that nothing rational will bring any result, that life is verging on not being worth living. In society, anyone perpetrating that sort of self-mutilation would be put into psychiatric care. I don't know whether we can really call it blackmail; it only works on that level if we already acknowledge some sort of guilt - because their lip sewing can only hurt our consciences.

Now, regarding queue jumping. To the best of my understanding, it is perfectly legal to enter this country by any means if you intend to seek asylum. This doesn't give you the right to stay here, but it does give you the right to have your application assessed. It is not a criminal act. And the government is engaging in a bit of double speak here. They refer to this mythical queue, and then turn around and say they want to ensure that those most in need be given refuge. Unless the queue has magically ordered itself from most to least in need (however that might be calculated), it sounds to me like the government are condoning queue jumpers.

BTW, I heard something hilarious on the radio this morning. Apparently there are less boats headed this way. This is claimed to be the direct result of our treatment of asylum seekers - the message is getting through. It's also monsoon season, something they conveniently forgot to mention.

[Joe Mama]

Danny Chook, I wasn't being picky, its just that the Angles were one of many tribes who came to the British Isles to seek thier fortune. (p.s by the way, the Saxons in Germany are like Tasmanians, they always get picked on) also, my ancestry is danish,german, irish, russian, polish and yiddish. So its not as if i'm defending my own people:D .

But, back to what this was originally was about, to get the support that Phillip Ruddock is recieving through his detention program (which was started by the Labour Party under Paul Keating by the way) he would have to get a lot more people on-side than just the old reactionary talk back show listeners, talking to a lot of immigrants up here and down in Melbourne, you're suprised by the level of indifference that these people show towards the asylum seekers.

Its suprising because, the people who you would think would be on thier side (e.g people who came here as refugees, those who share religious similarities with most of the asylum seekers, and those who paid a lot of money to have the one chance of a better life) are the ones that support the government because they paid their dues to come here (e.g my grandfather had to spend 12 months at Bonnegilla, living in a nissen hut, and suffering bad food and extremes in weather) and they percieve that the peole in Woomera are getting a easy ride.

The left wing has really lost the information war here (just like what they did during the aftermath of the september 11 attacks, where they showed thier true colours, almost to the point of condoning terrorism), and because of this, people are sick of listeneing to them, because they are percieved to the the usual suspects of chardonnay socialists, millitants, students and old communists, and that's why Ruddock has so much support (I think that there must be a better way to deal with such people, such as using what happenes in Sweden for example) he has hit a raw nerve amoungst ordinary people, and for better or worse, being the clever politician he is, he has run with this line and it seems to be working for him, but i'll like to see what will happen to him when people realise that they have been juped.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
My thoughts on reconciliation:

Most definitely a two way street. There's no point in Anglos attempting to right the wrongs of the past if the Aboginal population is not receptive to the efforts.
The first thing that must be done is for the Anglo/Non-Aboriginal population to come to terms with, accept and (in one way or another) apologise for the systematic abuse of the Aboriginal race (or races) over the first two centuries of colonisation
The Aboriginal population should make assurances that any such "apology" is not used as a trigger for wholesale compensation claims - this would be as divisive as any action on the other side
Anglos to seek to gain an understanding and tolerance of Aboriginal customs and beliefs
Aborigines to elect a representative and useful council to govern their dealings with the Commonwealth
And most importantly, human beings to start treating each other as equals, rather than discriminating on stupid, superficial differences

Nicw words but very short on substance. But at least you have had a go.
Okay, the government says sorry. Not something I agree with but let's say it's done. Assurances of no claims arising out of the apology? To be realistic the ONLY reason for trying to get Australia to say sorry is so the aboriginals can claim compensation. So there is no chance of that policy working. Don't forget the article in nespapers from a top aboriginal elder saying 'sorry' was the beginning. The four pillars of requirement to appease aboriginals are :-
1) Compensation and land return
2) 20% guaranteed aboriginal participation in all government
3) Aboriginal Law to over-ride Australian Law
4) The Aboriginal flag to be a significant part of the Australian flag.

Now you have said 'sorry' and Australia is on the back foot, what are your decisions on these key requirements?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
anecdotal

Anglos to seek to gain an understanding and tolerance of Aboriginal customs and beliefs

there's heaps of that going on at schools but why should I seek to learn about aboriginal culture over the thousands of other more interesting ones in the world. Freedom of choice is something I prefer

Aborigines to elect a representative and useful council to govern their dealings with the Commonwealth

Like ATSIC or ALS, paid for by Australians so Austrlians can be sued daily

And most importantly, human beings to start treating each other as equals, rather than discriminating on stupid, superficial differences

Wouldnt everyone in the world like that, but utopia is a fantasy. But the use of the word 'discriminating' is interesting, I agree with the sentiment completely but society in general favours discrimination if it is so called 'positive'. Otherwise there would be either no ATSIC or there would be government funded agencies for all cultures, and no ALS unless there are Italian Legas Services, British, Afghan, Bosnian etc. And young athletes parents would pay the same for sending their children interstate to compete rather than it being free if you have at lease 1/16th aboriginal blood.

Yep, I don't like discrimination of any type

But your answers to the four pillars are what i'd really be interested in.

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

1 - Obviously I disagree with, as mentioned above. Land return doesn't overly concern me, but monetary compensation is a sticky point (in any section of socity - I detest a litigious society).

2 - Can't be any worse than it already is - bring it on.

3 - Obviously unworkable under a single society. Inconsistent laws are completely useless.

4 - Do it right now. Top left hand corner. Out: Union flag; In: Aboriginal flag.

**********************************************
"A top aboriginal elder" - reputable source. Sounds to me like some reporter has a "source" that he knows he can get meaty, provocative sound bites out of. No names, no pack drill, huh? It's very easy and safe to take the most radical Aboriginal line and dress it up as standard Aboriginal Activism policy. The truth is that there are radicals and moderates in that movement, just as there are in any political organisation.

Hanging your hat from a quote from an unnamed source is just pandering to fears and prejudices. "Yeah, they want all the land and all the money, bloody bludgers!" Simply not true.

Finally, if you think that the ONLY reason to seek a formalised apology for the sins of the past is a platform for compensation claims, then the basis for your views and beliefs becomes clear. It's a sorry human trait that we generally let fear and self-preservation get in our way of growing and maturing as individuals, and here is a prime example.

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
1 - Obviously I disagree with, as mentioned above. Land return doesn't overly concern me, but monetary compensation is a sticky point (in any section of socity - I detest a litigious society).

2 - Can't be any worse than it already is - bring it on.

3 - Obviously unworkable under a single society. Inconsistent laws are completely useless.

4 - Do it right now. Top left hand corner. Out: Union flag; In: Aboriginal flag.

**********************************************
"A top aboriginal elder" - reputable source. Sounds to me like some reporter has a "source" that he knows he can get meaty, provocative sound bites out of. No names, no pack drill, huh? It's very easy and safe to take the most radical Aboriginal line and dress it up as standard Aboriginal Activism policy. The truth is that there are radicals and moderates in that movement, just as there are in any political organisation.

Hanging your hat from a quote from an unnamed source is just pandering to fears and prejudices. "Yeah, they want all the land and all the money, bloody bludgers!" Simply not true.

Finally, if you think that the ONLY reason to seek a formalised apology for the sins of the past is a platform for compensation claims, then the basis for your views and beliefs becomes clear. It's a sorry human trait that we generally let fear and self-preservation get in our way of growing and maturing as individuals, and here is a prime example.


1- Saying sorry will not provide a platform for increased compensation claims as the compensation claims for past wrong doings are already being dealt with in the courts. There are still many to be decided as there is still a long list of cases that the courts haven't had the time to address. So far results have gone both ways depending on the facts presented in each case - this includes the Federal and High court decision reached in Darwin last year on a general stolen generation claim.

Having the Federal govt say sorry like all mainland states have done already will not impact on these cases and the many still to be addressed this - only the facts of each case will.

2 - They may not have 20% of the seats in govt around the country but they would have 20% or more influence on laws passed in this country. There are many powerful aboriginal lobbyists on both sides of politics that affect 20% or more of the decisions made by our parties.

3 - If you lived up here in the NT you would already know that Aboriginal law does in fact override Australian Law on most Aboriginal cimmunities - it might not be legal but just ask any aboriginal that has been found guilty of assualt or murder what happens when they return to their homeland. The days of spears being used for punishment for wring doing are still well and truly alive in these places. Most youngsters dealt with in court are too scared to go back and face their customary justice......pity they don't have the same fear for Australian Laws.

4 - I agree with Danny Chook on this one.......would certainly look better and have more meaning than the thing in the current top left corner of our flag.


I also agree with you Danny on the 'reliable source' - any journalist in the country cand find one of those to back up any story they care to write. There are just as many radicals with the 'white australia' movement - just look at the groups with ties to the Nazi country and KKK we have in this country......they too are used as 'reliable sources' at times if it suits a journalists needs.

Unfortunately we need a govt that is open to discussion by all sides of the equation about what needs to be done to move forward - certainly won't happen with the current one.

One thing I would like to know though is how the early days of white settlement in Australia is taught in our schools up to year 10. When I did Australian history in year 10 back in the late 70's we spent plenty of time on thing like bushrangers, exporers, pioneers and poets but bugger all on anything about Aboriginals in this country. I liken that to how the Japanese education system never taught them anything about what happened to them during WWII.

I'd like to think things are better these days.......

Can anyone enlighten me on whether there is any Aboriginal History taught as part of our Australian History programs in schools today.

Certainly is an interesting discussion this one.......

[dreamkillers]

BTW....

A little side track to this on the law side of things in our country.....

I'd love to see Corporal Punishment (not Capital) bought back in to our laws........bring back the stocks and put repeat offenders on display in our malls with their names on display. As well as going back to the 'Life Of Brian' days lets replace the stones with tomatoes and other soft fruit..........

I'd love to throw a few tomatoes at these young mugs that think they are invincible and laugh off their punishments for continued property offences. Public humiliation and shaming might make them think it's not all that fun to keep on doing.


PS......I think the Vogon's are stopping me from hitting post no. 42 as this would be my 10th post that comes up as post 39.......at least I don't have to listen to their poetry readings.....:D

[Frodo]

Just a quickie in the cricket interval. I will try and dig out the articles I referred to but it was a couple of years ago when the marches for reconciliation were going. It started with a letter from the head of the ALS in WA that was printed in the "West Australian' who made those four pre-requisite claims after saying sorry.......I can't think of his name. But I will try and dig it out. I kept the articles for over a year and showed a lot of people just what the true aborighinal agenda was.

anyhow..for now...back to the cricket

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Frodo
Just a quickie in the cricket interval. I will try and dig out the articles I referred to but it was a couple of years ago when the marches for reconciliation were going. It started with a letter from the head of the ALS in WA that was printed in the "West Australian' who made those four pre-requisite claims after saying sorry.......I can't think of his name. But I will try and dig it out. I kept the articles for over a year and showed a lot of people just what the true aborighinal agenda was.

anyhow..for now...back to the cricket

Name........Dennis Eggington

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
1 - Obviously I disagree with, as mentioned above. Land return doesn't overly concern me, but monetary compensation is a sticky point (in any section of socity - I detest a litigious society).

2 - Can't be any worse than it already is - bring it on.

3 - Obviously unworkable under a single society. Inconsistent laws are completely useless.

4 - Do it right now. Top left hand corner. Out: Union flag; In: Aboriginal flag.

"
Not bad for your first day as prime minister.

1) Aboriginals up in arms as government admits responsibility of Australian nation for crimes by previous governments and refuses to pay compensation.

2) Aboriginals now hold the balance of power in every house of every state in Australia. The Australian dollar collapses, investment is withdrawn by international companies, interest rates soar, unemployment hits 50%, poverty is rife throughout the nation.

3) If white men are not subject to Aboriginal laws (which must become common law), there is no reconciliation. White Australia is not respecting the true owners of the land.

4) Australian crowds tear the prime minister to shreds in scenes reminiscent of the Bolshevic revolution as their flag is undemocraticaly changed. ( You would never succeed in a referendum to replace the union flag with the aboriginal one although there is a chance with a green and gold flag, arguably the national colours)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So there we go. The reconciliation has failed, the country in ruins and you are dead.:eek:

How about starting again?


ps...dreamkillers.......when was there ever a case of admission of liability (which a current government saying sorry' would be de fact doing) that didn't give rise to compensation claims?

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Frodo


ps...dreamkillers.......when was there ever a case of admission of liability (which a current government saying sorry' would be de fact doing) that didn't give rise to compensation claims?

I've yet to hear of one against any of the state govenrments that have all said sorry in the past few years.

Up here in the NT it was one of the first things the new Labor govt did when they claimed power for the first time last last year and there I haven't been any groups or people rushing to the courts with claims against them...........

I'm more concerned with the way this country is turning into a US style litigation against any form or copmensation claim......the only winners out of this are the lawyers as in the end it will only mean the death of legitimate entertainment venues with their pulic liability insurance costs forcing them out of business. Most premiums for this are rising a great deal more than 100% which is becoming a joke. The sooner our govt follows NZ by limiting damages amounts the less impact it will have on our social lives.

[Joe Mama]

You're right, dreamkillers. small businesses and community organisations (like the Tatura Milk young farmers and the Murchison Football Netball Club, both of which, i'm a current member of) are really taking it in the rear through insurance premiums, and spiraling costs, and as soon as the government puts a stop to these insane claims and limits the ammount of money they can get through compensation, then small groups like the ones I mentioned above, can go and do the things that have benefitted the community for decades, if this doesn't end, then businesses and clubs will close and the community will suffer as a whole.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen
You're right, dreamkillers. small businesses and community organisations (like the Tatura Milk young farmers and the Murchison Football Netball Club, both of which, i'm a current member of) are really taking it in the rear through insurance premiums, and spiraling costs, and as soon as the government puts a stop to these insane claims and limits the ammount of money they can get through compensation, then small groups like the ones I mentioned above, can go and do the things that have benefitted the community for decades, if this doesn't end, then businesses and clubs will close and the community will suffer as a whole.

I agree completely, it's all gotten out of hand.

[Roylion]

Originally posted by dreamkillers

One thing I would like to know though is how the early days of white settlement in Australia is taught in our schools up to year 10. When I did Australian history in year 10 back in the late 70's we spent plenty of time on thing like bushrangers, exporers, pioneers and poets but bugger all on anything about Aboriginals in this country. I liken that to how the Japanese education system never taught them anything about what happened to them during WWII.

I'd like to think things are better these days.......

Can anyone enlighten me on whether there is any Aboriginal History taught as part of our Australian History programs in schools today.

Certainly is an interesting discussion this one.......

I agree...an interesting discussion

The present school curriculum, at least in Victoria, does provide plenty of scope to teach Aboriginal history, particularly in Years 5-6 and Years 9-10. In Grade 5-6 there is emphasis on how the lifestyle and organisation of Aboriginal society have changed over time and in Year 9-10, students study the struggle of Aboriginal communities for civil and political rights.

Unfortunately the study of history as a seperate discipline (particularly Australian history) has been so devalued, in terms of time and resources devoted to it, that the amount of time spent in this area is still very small.

Another difficulty, given the lack of time, is being able to justify a study of pre-1788 Aboriginals in "History." Some argue that, given the lack of recorded history (pre 1788), that such studies belong more in the study of anthropology, art, and archaelogy, rather than history. Certainly aboriginal relations with the white man within the context of colonial Australia as well as 20th century Australian history, is certainly very relevant in any study of Australian history.

[Satay Mat]

All....particularly Frodo....

a good read is a book called "Guns Germs and Steel"....can't remember the Author.

It starts with a question.......

"in the 16th century the Spanish conquered the Kingdoms of South America....killing millions. Why did we not have a boat full of "indians" sail to Spain and knock off the then Queen and conquer the country ?"

I found it really interesting.

The Aboriginals had very little agriculture (they did have some fish farms). They did not have large towns or cities. They were essentially nomadic. Why ? Why did you have structured societies in PNG and not in Northern Australia ? Ultimately they suggest that Australia:

a) lacks any native grasses suitable for agriculture. None. The only native Australian plant which has been turned into a viable agriculture is Maccadania Nuts.

b) Australia lacks any domestic beasts of burden. A bit hard to use a Kangaroo to plough a field.

So, the aboriginals lived in a manner suited to the environment in which they lived. They did this far more successfully than any white people did. White people flourished in Australia because they brought their crops, their beasts of burden and used the arrable land to their advantage.

So, were they an insignificant race ?

By the "standards of the day"....yes....I believe so. I seriously do not mean this in a "superior" way....just considering the standards of the colonists / invaders.

Then during the 1800's you had the ugly rise of Darwinism with justification for government sanctioned genocide being based on misuded survival of the fittest arguements.

Should we, with today's values recognize what happened was wrong ? Yes....I think we should. I think we should though in that context....based on what we now know what happened was wrong and we are sorry. Of course there are many instances on both sides of things which are wrong by any standards but this is a different topic.

Will saying sorry open up cases for comensation ? No. Those cases are there now. They will be decided on legal fact not on whether the Government says sorry or not. That is irrelavent.

A really good book btw....no racist mumbo-jumbo but looking at native plants, animals and other first principles and going from there as to why "civiliation" grew in only a limited number of places (middle east and south america)

Satay Mat

[Porthos]

Satay Mat: As someone that has filled out insurance claims for car crashes twice now, one of the most prominent questions is "Did you, at any time, accept responsibility/blame for this incident?"

If its your fault, and you admit it, you're liable. Admitting that you're to blame (ie. apologising), leaves you wide open...it -is- a legal issue, because this admission would become a point in any case against the state.

Guns, Germs and Steel: Its a good book....also indicates the environmental factors that let to the Hun invasion of Europe.

[Satay Mat]

Originally posted by Porthos
Satay Mat: As someone that has filled out insurance claims for car crashes twice now, one of the most prominent questions is "Did you, at any time, accept responsibility/blame for this incident?"

If its your fault, and you admit it, you're liable. Admitting that you're to blame (ie. apologising), leaves you wide open...it -is- a legal issue, because this admission would become a point in any case against the state.

Guns, Germs and Steel: Its a good book....also indicates the environmental factors that let to the Hun invasion of Europe.

indeed...but if you tick "no" you can still be liable....if it is your fault it is your fault. So if the government thinks that hiding behind a legal defence for not apologizing will helpthen that is foolish indeed. I think Howard actually does not feel sorry. He feels that any wrongdoings were not done by him and therefore he has no responsibility to apologize. An approach we have taken a different stance on with the Japanese re pow's btw.

Read another excellent book just last night called "English Passengers". Its fiction but fairly accurate in describing what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginies. So much was done which was wrong, but so much was done in the name of Christianity and trying to "civilize" people. I kept thinking how wrong it was (shipping the entire population to Flinder's Island for example) but then the motives of many of the people were true.

So should the Tasmanian or British government apologize for that ??? In context I think they should. ie knowing what we know today what we did was wrong and we are sorry.


Satay Mat

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Porthos
Satay Mat: As someone that has filled out insurance claims for car crashes twice now, one of the most prominent questions is "Did you, at any time, accept responsibility/blame for this incident?"

If its your fault, and you admit it, you're liable. Admitting that you're to blame (ie. apologising), leaves you wide open...it -is- a legal issue, because this admission would become a point in any case against the state.

Guns, Germs and Steel: Its a good book....also indicates the environmental factors that let to the Hun invasion of Europe.


As I stated in an earlier post.....

1- Saying sorry will not provide a platform for increased compensation claims as the compensation claims for past wrong doings are already being dealt with in the courts. There are still many to be decided as there is still a long list of cases that the courts haven't had the time to address. So far results have gone both ways depending on the facts presented in each case - this includes the Federal and High court decision reached in Darwin last year on a general stolen generation claim.

Having the Federal govt say sorry like all mainland states have done already will not impact on these cases and the many still to be addressed this - only the facts of each case will.


Have yet to see any evidence of wide spread claims against any of the state governments around the country that have all said sorry about the past wrong doings.

Both books sound like interesting reading.......