Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[romeoh]

From the Australian.Chris Kenny:

The evidence of Triggs’s partisanship is compelling: when thousands of asylum-seekers were arriving monthly, including hundreds of children, and detention centres were overflowing (with detained children reaching a peak of 1992), she considered an inquiry and discussed it with Labor ministers but did not call one.
For more than a year under Labor, with chaos on our borders and thousands of children churned through detention, the commission president waited.
Only after a change of government, after the boats were stopped, after no more asylum-seekers were going into detention and the number of children was already halved, did Triggs launch her inquiry.... Coalition supporters can view it as a political attack while the so-called compassionate Left should see it as an unforgivable delay in confronting an urgent dilemma....
Before Senate committees [Triggs] has given at least a half-dozen different stories about when and why she called the inquiry. Some excuses were demonstrably wrong , she once blamed it on fears of a snap election when a September date had already been announced , and she changed some of her explanations within hours of making them. The AHRC president claimed there were armed guards at detention centres when there were none and likened centres to prisons, before retracting. Most tellingly, she denied ever discussing an inquiry into children in detention with Labor ministers, then refused to answer questions before finally revealing she had discussed the issue with two different Labor immigration ministers.

The initial review was held in 2004, at that time it was prescribed that a follow up one be conducted in 10 years. She began the review in 2014-that's 10 years.
Yet again though, this complete obsession with that sort of detail is not the point. The conditions for the children in detention is the issue at hand and everything I have read suggests Triggs is critical of the ALP and the current government for their management of the detention centres.
Focus on the report.

 

[Todman]

The initial review was held in 2004, at that time it was prescribed that a follow up one be conducted in 10 years. She began the review in 2014-that's 10 years.
Yet again though, this complete obsession with that sort of detail is not the point. The conditions for the children in detention is the issue at hand and everything I have read suggests Triggs is critical of the ALP and the current government fro their management of the detention centres.
Focus on the report.

Did you miss the bit about how she told furphies to cover her arse in the Senate hearings?

 

[Todman]

Isn't Kenny a dog goose?

Playing the man. typical

 

[CM86]

Playing the man. typical

Please read your last two posts, and laugh at the irony with me!

Triggs puts out a report, and everyone attacks Triggs...

Throws a spanner in the works for those who have been pretending they care about the people.

 

[romeoh]

Did you miss the bit about how she told furphies to cover her arse in the Senate hearings?

Again-did you miss the part about what the report actually said?

 

[Maggie5]

Again-did you miss the part about what the report actually said?

They are not interested in the content, just in scoring political points as true believers.

 

[GuruJane]

No, they are interested in self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government. Even though Labor put the children into detention (2000 plus) and the coalition took them out (less than 200).
They are also interested that the hypocrites themselves share responsibility for children suffering in detention because they are the ones who supported Labor policies in 2007 and elected Rudd to re-empower the people smuggling industry either by their preferences or direct vote.

 

[noddy]

No, they are interested in self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government. Even though Labor put the children into detention (2000 plus) and the coalition took them out (less than 200).
They are also interested that the hypocrites themselves share responsibility for children suffering in detention because they are the ones who supported Labor policies in 2007 and elected Rudd to re-empower the people smuggling industry either by their preferences or direct vote.

Your posting style has just about reached rock bottom Jane.

 

[Maggie5]

No, they are interested in self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government. Even though Labor put the children into detention (2000 plus) and the coalition took them out (less than 200).
They are also interested that the hypocrites themselves share responsibility for children suffering in detention because they are the ones who supported Labor policies in 2007 and elected Rudd to re-empower the people smuggling industry either by their preferences or direct vote.

You really are becoming repetitive, only so many ways you can say the same thing.
Please point to posts where I have excused the Labor party for its decisions or supported their view on children in detention?

 

[Maggie5]

Your posting style has just about reached rock bottom Jane.

And oh so repetitive.

 

[CM86]

No, they are interested in self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government. Even though Labor put the children into detention (2000 plus) and the coalition took them out (less than 200).
They are also interested that the hypocrites themselves share responsibility for children suffering in detention because they are the ones who supported Labor policies in 2007 and elected Rudd to re-empower the people smuggling industry either by their preferences or direct vote.

I didn't know that the Triggs report held mention of people's opinion on bigfooty...

Is that part of the corruption? Does that change the report?

Does it mean a lick of difference, or are you just trying to use children's lives to score points?

Aren't you only in this for the humanitarian aspects?

 

[GuruJane]

self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government.

The cap appears to be fitting.

 

[Maggie5]

I believe that I have worked out the three basic principles you follow in posting responses.
Deflect
Accuse
Insult

 

[Todman]

No, they are interested in self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites who never posted here about the children in detention issue while Labor was in power but do so now continually that the coalition is the government. Even though Labor put the children into detention (2000 plus) and the coalition took them out (less than 200).
They are also interested that the hypocrites themselves share responsibility for children suffering in detention because they are the ones who supported Labor policies in 2007 and elected Rudd to re-empower the people smuggling industry either by their preferences or direct vote.

When labor are in power these self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites don't visit this board. They hang out at Crikey and other lefty sites and they hang out for a groupthink.

 

[Maggie5]

When labor are in power these self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites don't visit this board. They hang out at Crikey and other lefty sites and they hang out for a groupthink.

Source?

 

[Todman]

Source?

Only when I'm having sausages.

 

[Schache It Off]

I believe that I have worked out the three basic principles you follow in posting responses.
Deflect
Accuse
Insult

No.

That is something leftists like you do.

 

[midorigreenwood]

I think its fair criticism that there is a double standard in how some folks have treated past and present Coalition and Labor governments.

The Siev X is a prime example. There is a whole conspiracy movement built around the tragedy to the extent that Howard, Ruddock and the AFP were branded murderers. There were memorial events to mark the fifth and tenth year anniversary and there was even a public remembrance site set up with some sort of column art iirc.

Yet there were many tragedies that happened during the Labor administration that has largely gone forgotten.

Candles only seem to get lit when there is a Liberal in charge.

 

[Maggie5]

No.

That is something leftists like you do.

How many times to I have to repeat, I know nothing about leftists, I am right handed.
Actually you have covered the first two principles in your post, now all you need is to insult.
Although if 'leftist' is also meant to insult than you have covered all three in one sentence. Congratulations.

 

[midorigreenwood]

Why do we only care for hypocrisy now? Because without hypocrisy... bf SRP wouldn't exist... why is it so important now?

What about we look at the facts, and what has been shown to us?

Because there is a fair chance that one day history will repeat itself? That some folks are using children as a political weapon to try to bring down our border control system rather than genuine concern?

Remember it was reports released by advocates which was largely responsible for Labor deciding to shut down the Pacific solution in the first place.

https://www.oxfam.org.au/media/2007/08/the-pacific-solution-a-1-billion-living-hell/

Six years since the Tampa crisis of the 2001 Federal election, urgent reform of Australia’s asylum seeker policies is called for after a new report published today (August 27) found that the Pacific Solution had so far squandered $1 billion of taxpayers’ money, exacerbated mental illness of refugees and was operating without scrutiny.
‘A Price Too High: The cost of Australia’s approach to Asylum Seekers,’ a joint report by Oxfam and A Just Australia, presents new research that found since 2001 it has cost the Australian taxpayer more than $500,000 per person to process fewer than 1,700 asylum seekers in Nauru, Manus and Christmas Island. By comparison, the latest estimate from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship suggests that the cost of holding asylum seekers in a mainland Australian detention centre is only 3.5% of the running costs of the Pacific Solution.
‘The Pacific Solution is neither value for money nor humane,’ said Executive Director of Oxfam Australia, Andrew Hewett. In six years since Tampa the cost of the Pacific Solution to the Australian taxpayer has been $1 billion. We are calling on the Australian National Audit Office to investigate the full financial cost of the Pacific Solution.’
The research found that The Pacific Solution has been both costly to the nation’s taxpayers as well as to the health and wellbeing of asylum seekers who have had to endure years of isolated offshore detention, compounding post traumatic stress disorder after having fled persecution from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
‘It has tarnished Australia’s reputation as a nation that upholds human rights and does not mistreat people,’ said Mr Hewett.

There are really two competing philosophies concerning this issue

On one side there are those that believe that prevention is the optimum strategy with dealing with a problem where there is virtually unlimited demand of those seeking shelter in western countries (According to EU officials, there are up to a million migrants waiting to get on boats in North Africa to Italy). This is done by removing any incentive there is for anyone to get on a boat whether it be turnbacks, offshore processing or TPVs. It identifies that once it gets out of control. the economic and human cost becomes astronomical.

On the other side there are those blinded by emotion rather than pragmatism. They are lead by good intentions rather than practical solutions to the extent that they're repeating the same arguments that led to hundreds of deaths, thousands of people being kept in detention and billions of dollars being wasted in the first place. Look at what happened in Britain where asylum seekers were processed in the community for decades. There is a ten year waiting list to get cases looked at which has led to a utterly broken system.

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of children in detention are on Nauru and they will be released into the community in due time like the hundreds of family groups already living in the island.

The problem is largely being solved unlike the chaos happening in Europe.

The primary concern is not encouraging more children to get on boats and risking their lives.

 

[Max zero]

Because there is a fair chance that one day history will repeat itself? That some folks are using children as a political weapon to try to bring down our border control system rather than genuine concern?

Remember it was reports released by advocates which was largely responsible for Labor deciding to shut down the Pacific solution in the first place.

https://www.oxfam.org.au/media/2007/08/the-pacific-solution-a-1-billion-living-hell/



There are really two competing philosophies concerning this issue

On one side there are those that believe that prevention is the optimum strategy with dealing with a problem where there is virtually unlimited demand of those seeking shelter in western countries (According to EU officials, there are up to a million migrants waiting to get on boats in North Africa to Italy). This is done by removing any incentive there is for anyone to get on a boat whether it be turnbacks, offshore processing or TPVs. It identifies that once it gets out of control. the economic and human cost becomes astronomical.

On the other side there are those blinded by emotion rather than pragmatism. They are lead by good intentions rather than practical solutions to the extent that they're repeating the same arguments that led to hundreds of deaths, thousands of people being kept in detention and billions of dollars being wasted in the first place. Look at what happened in Britain where asylum seekers were processed in the community for decades. There is a ten year waiting list to get cases looked at which has led to a utterly broken system.

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of children in detention are on Nauru and they will be released into the community in due time like the hundreds of family groups already living in the island.

The problem is largely being solved unlike the chaos happening in Europe.

The primary concern is not encouraging more children to get on boats and risking their lives.

That's the crazy thing. The horrible, cruel, evil Howard Pacific solution ACTUALLY WORKS.

Almost all the children are out of detention.
Detention numbers in general are falling rapidly.
No one is getting on and dying on leaky boats.

Compared to Europe's disaster (using Rudd-like policies) I find out methods far more preferable.

The same posters keep advocating for policies that are either PROVEN not to work or have NEVER been tried anywhere in the world (and thus have no idea if they work).

The cognitive dissonance has reached truly epic proportions.

 

[GuruJane]

I didn't know that the Triggs report held mention of people's opinion on bigfooty...

Who said it did?

 

[Malifice]

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes - It's not compatible with the west if it clears it up.
4) Yes
5) Yes - Leftists ignore this as they need to buy their votes and support hence both rely on each other. Statistics show most are extremists.
6) Yes
7) Yes
8) Yes and No - Not enough Muslims in the West are speaking out and statistics show plenty of Muslims in Europe are extremists. However we need to start somewhere.
9) No - Just stop giving Muslim immigrants welfare and kick any out of the nation that commits a crime.
10) Yes - Due to cultural shock, assimilation will make everything normal again though.

How can you say you dont support discrimination based on religion, and then say that?

Islamophobe.

 

[romeoh]

ICM Poll: 58% of British Muslims believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

etc

Religion of peace.

Looked at the links that worked and they don't actually verify the claim. (and some questionable sources/surveys) But thanks for the effort.

 

[Schache It Off]

How can you say you dont support discrimination based on religion, and then say that?

Islamophobe.

All immigrants. Unproductive Muslims are a waste and the ones who actually move to different countries and actually be productive are the ones I am more than happy to let them stay.

Is that Islamophobic?

Looked at the links that worked and they don't actually verify the claim. (and some questionable sources/surveys) But thanks for the effort.

Then you fail at reading.

Anything is questionable when you don't agree with it.