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

[Maggie5]

So you have nothing to say about another poster calling people SCUM, it seems you are extremely selective in who you take issue with, no wonder people dont take you seriously

This is complimenting me?

i'm not attacking you at all, i am asking you do right thing , and also point out CM86 should not have called posters SCUM, its not much to ask from you

Already answered

 

[Xsess]

And all it's taken is multiple breaches of basic human rights, not to mention UN conventions that we are signatory to.

How dare us stop the carnage of deaths at sea, removal of people from indefinate detention and maintenance of our enviable record of permanent resettlement of genuine refugees. The UN clearly knows better. Look at their human rights sucessess all over the middle east and asia. What a pillar they are.

 

[Gough]

None of those deaths at sea, or refugee camps are the responsibility of the Australian government, they didn't occur to people in our care. Now I doubt you will see the difference, but to dumb it down for you, the Australian government is responsible for the well being of these people, and they are failing miserably to appease people like you.

 

[Xsess]

None of those deaths at sea, or refugee camps are the responsibility of the Australian government, they didn't occur to people in our care. Now I doubt you will see the difference, but to dumb it down for you, the Australian government is responsible for the well being of these people, and they are failing miserably to appease people like you.

Well yes that makes it morally ok then if they weren't technically in our legal juristiction (even if government policy was directly responsible for encouraging them to a water grave). The 1200 deaths are clearly counterbalanced by the single dead rioter in our "care", and the instances of abuse inflicted by asylum seekers on other asylum seekers while Australia tried to work out who the hell these people are and where they came from.

 

[hunt1234]

Well yes that makes it morally ok then if they weren't technically in our legal juristiction (even if government policy was directly responsible for encouraging them to a water grave). The 1200 deaths are clearly counterbalanced by the single dead rioter in our "care", and the instances of abuse inflicted by asylum seekers on other asylum seekers while Australia tried to work out who the hell these people are and where they came from.

We should be proud of the way the Government has handled a flood of illegal arrivals. I cant get why anyone would be handwringing about boat arrivals, dont they realise it has STOPPED, and we have no new arrivals and the detention centres setup by labor have almost been emptied. The people who carry on wouldnt be happy no matter what the government did, the immigration minister should sue these clowns for slander . And why Sarah Hansen Young is not before a criminal court for encouraging people to make dangerous trips with drowning the most likely outcome is beyond me, and the woman has not even apologised, she is totally shameless the way she has behaved.

 

[Little Big John]

It was his choice to do it, obviously his decision making process needs attention. Not the right type of person that this country needs the sooner he gets the arse the better. Be even better if soft utensils like you could be sent with him.

Exactly. If we're going to have utensils in the country they need to be hard utensils don't they raghav?

 

[Xsess]

And why Sarah Hansen Young is not before a criminal court for encouraging people to make dangerous trips with drowning the most likely outcome is beyond me, and the woman has not even apologised, she is totally shameless the way she has behaved.

Agreed. Instances of self harm and abuse rise in the immediate aftermath of a vist to a dentention centre by SHY, who's happy for people to matyre themselves for her "cause". What I want to know is how she (and Ian Rintoul) know about vessels arriving in Australia before our navy? If she's in contact with people smugglers then as far as I'm concerned she's part of the industry.

 

[Max zero]

None of those deaths at sea, or refugee camps are the responsibility of the Australian government, they didn't occur to people in our care. Now I doubt you will see the difference, but to dumb it down for you, the Australian government is responsible for the well being of these people, and they are failing miserably to appease people like you.

We only incentivize boat arrivals, gave false hope and rewarded desperate people for bringing their children and destroying their documentation.

Their deaths are apparently not our problem. Maggie5 is right no need to investigate the deaths it's all in the past and does not matter. No lessons to be learned nothing to improve on.

 

[hunt1234]

Agreed. Instances of self harm and abuse rise in the immediate aftermath of a vist to a dentention centre by SHY, who's happy for people to matyre themselves for her "cause". What I want to know is how she (and Ian Rintoul) know about vessels arriving in Australia before our navy? If she's in contact with people smugglers then as far as I'm concerned she's part of the industry.

There should be a major investigation into Sarah Hansen Young activities as to where she got all this prior information about illegal vessels and the full weight of the law should be thrown at her. She is the most sickening individual to enter the parliament ever and thats saying something.

 

[Todman]

Hunger striker is taking nutrition again (guardian link so as not to startle anyone).

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...accepts-fluids-after-44-days-on-hunger-strike

“I welcome the news that [he] has begun accepting food, but we must not forget why he was driven to such lengths,” Hanson-Young said. “This man chose to end his life in immigration detention rather than return to his homeland."

No hyphen, he didn't end his life.

Dutton said he had reviewed the man’s case in light of his hunger strike, and remained “thoroughly convinced that the decision that has been made is the right one.”
“The difficulty is if we allow people to self-harm or to refuse food or fluid and that somehow that would twist my arm and I would issue a visa with work rights, which is what he’s after … if I was to succumb to that pressure the strong advice from my department – and I have no doubt in accepting that advice at all – is that I would have hundreds if not thousands of people on hunger strikes tomorrow,” he said.

The minister is correct.

 

[Lebbo73]

Agreed. The asylum seekers engaging in this kind of abuse should have their claims thrown out and be immediately deported.

And sent back on one of the boats supplied by the people smugglers.

 

[CM86]

Watch your language, unnecessary!!!
Not surprised with who liked it.

Interestingly, my posts have been deleted by a mod, for calling people who laugh, and make crude jokes about the guy, "scum".

Yet you are being attacked, for telling someone not to call me a "soft utensil".
Also, that post has been left.

Now I'm not complaining about moderation. Calling the posters "scum" was personal abuse, and the mods can't be expected to read every post. And I have been carded for personal abuse a few times before, because I have been abusive.


What I am pointing out, however, is that for a page now, you have been personally attacked for asking raghav not to call me a soft utensil, while ignoring my scum comment.

And don't worry about the hunt1234 character. It is just the new account of lewismaxwell/richmonds/ et al.

 

[Gough]

So hows about the sexual abuse, and torture carried out in our name by the government. Everyone good with that?

 

[raghav]

And sent back on one of the boats supplied by the people smugglers.

Unfortunately I think they burnt them all, pity SHY wasn't on one of them.

 

[raghav]

So hows about the sexual abuse, and torture carried out in our name by the government. Everyone good with that?

Speak for yourself, if they hadn't been silly enough to choose to try and get here by illegal means they wouldn't be there.

 

[Little Big John]

You're wasting your time, back to the asylum.

Suggests I seek asylum while demonising others who seek asylum. At least try to hold a consistent position.

 

[Todman]

This is a national disgrace. The government knew what was happening on Nauru, and rather than set about trying to resolve the problem they just attacked their critics.

I look forward, in vain I suspect, to the those responsible for this being held to account.

Any asylum seeker caught abusing another asylum seeker should never get a visa.

 

[pazza]

Any asylum seeker caught abusing another asylum seeker should never get a visa.

True.

But what about security officials and officers in charge of these camps also engaging in the physical and mental abuse of asylum seekers...what sort of punishment should be metered out to them?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

So hows about the sexual abuse, and torture carried out in our name by the government. Everyone good with that?

Reckon the psychopathic circle jerkers have just increased their BPM

 

[hunt1234]

And don't worry about the hunt1234 character. It is just the new account of lewismaxwell/richmonds/ et al.[/QUOTE]
There is No need to TAG me in to postings, i don't wish to be involved with issues you may have, its got nothing to do with me.

 

[Xsess]

So hows about the sexual abuse, and torture carried out in our name by the government. Everyone good with that?

There's no government policy of sexual abuse or torture, Gough.

The allegations of sexual abuse is terrible though. Seems to be overrepresented by a certain demographic, search “Rotterdam Rape Gangs” or the sexual abuse stats for Scandinavia but remember a few white priests are what we need to worry about.

 

[Maggie5]

There's no government policy of sexual abuse or torture, Gough.

Strange, I thought that they were offences under the law. Unless of course I missed the part where the government and it's employees/sub-contractors were exempt.

 

[Xsess]

Strange, I thought that they were offences under the law. Unless of course I missed the part where the government and it's employees/sub-contractors were exempt.

If there was evidence of an employee engaging in these abuses they'd be charged under our law and good riddance. But I think you will find overwelmingly the allegations of abuse are levelled at fellow detainees (which makes it doubly strange that Gough is using these allegations to call for detainees to be released to the community, alleged paedophiles and all).

 

[Maggie5]

If there was evidence of an employee engaging in these abuses they'd be charged under our law and good riddance. But I think you will find overwelmingly the allegations of abuse are levelled at fellow detainees (which makes it doubly strange that Gough is using these allegations to call for detainees to be released to the community, alleged paedophiles and all).

How would we know if your version is right as this open and transparent (Election Promise), don't release the full data although I daresay, the Moss report disagrees with you.

 

[Gough]

This leads me to think the government might be pretty jumpy about what is happening over there.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ty-over-use-of-force-in-immigration-detention

The federal government is seeking extraordinary new powers that would make it largely immune from liability for inappropriate uses of force on people in immigration detention centres.

The new powers would allow immigration officers – which may include private contractors – to use “reasonable force against any person” if the officer believes it is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of people in detention or to maintain the good order, peace or security of a detention centre.

Such powers potentially give staff with a low level of training a greater level of immunity than that granted to state and federal police forces.

Officers would be able to use the powers in the migration amendment (maintaining the good order of immigration detention facilities) bill as long as they did not subject “a person to greater indignity than the authorised office reasonably believes necessary”.

The bill states that grievous bodily harm – which courts have held to mean injuries that lead to serious or permanent disfigurement – could be inflicted on detainees if the officer “reasonably believes that doing the thing is necessary to protest the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the authorised officer)”.

The bill also seeks to restrict asylum seekers from bringing personal injury claims against the Commonwealth or private contractors relating to the use of force. They could only do so if it could be demonstrated that the detention officer did not exercise force “in good faith”.

The provision would give the federal government - and private contractors managing the centres - a level of immunity for personal injury claims that is not even available in relation to the actions of police officers.

While officers in the federal, NSW and Queensland police are personally exempt from liability in most injury claims, the state and federal governments can still be named in legal actions according to a Parliamentary Library analysis of the bill.

Claire O’Connor SC, a South Australian barrister who has represented asylum seekers in legal actions, said the bill raised serious concerns.

“In the correctional environment there are regulations which dictate the conditions of a prisoner’s regime including access to exercise, the use of solitary confinement,” she said. “Within detention centres, in spite of the courts repeatedly pointing this out as a problem, there are no regulations. People have been forcibly taken by handcuff, thrown into solitary sections of detention centres and kept there without any reason given, sometimes for weeks on end. That happens under the current system.

“From time to time the courts will criticise the use of this force and the use of solitary confinement as a breach of a duty to provide adequate care. I suspect the amendment is to sanction these cruel practices so that detainees who have been unlawfully injured cannot complain or sue for harm done”.

The parliamentary joint committee on human rights said the bill “appears to lack a number of safeguards that apply to analogous state and territory legislation governing the use of force in prisons”.

It includes no express requirement for force to be used as a last resort, or that inflicting injury should be avoided where possible.

“The bill would allow force to be used to prevent any action that disturbs the good order, peace or security of the facility, which provide an ill-defined and extremely broad authorisation for the use of force by IDSP officer,” the committee report said. “In contrast, analogous state and territory legislation governing the use of force in prisons generally limits the use of force to preventing or quelling a riot or disturbance”.

Currently private contractors are generally able to rely on powers under common law to use reasonable force. Police officers have statutory rules governing in what circumstances they can use force.

Although the bill does not specify what the training requirements are likely to be, the explanatory memorandum of the bill say that “at this time, the qualification and training requirements that are likely to be determined by the minister in writing ... include the certificate level II in security operations.”

A certificate level II in security operations is a base level training course for security personnel.

Daniel Webb, the director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said: “We’re the only country in the world that subjects asylum seekers to mandatory and indefinite detention as a first resort. Instead of creating excessive and unchecked powers to suppress unrest we should address its root causes – the length of time we leave innocent people detained in limbo.

“Immigration detention centres are incredibly closed environments. Increasing powers to use force while decreasing checks and balances on the exercise of those powers is a recipe for trouble.”

The bill is the subject of a Senate inquiry that is due to report in May.

People with nothing to hide, don't try to pass these sort of laws.