So why do people like John Howard

[pazza]

Not all the land claims are on mines!!!

What about the claim that centres around the beauty of Barmah Forest and the immediate area to the east of Echuca? Not a lot is said about that claim, but, it's one that Victorian Aborigines have been fighting for over quite some time now. Last I heard it was rejected (on the grounds that you can't put a land claim on a natural forest?????)

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This is incorrect - a number of countries use detention centres. A lot of countries don't too, but then again those ones also don't accept refugees.

Yes, but are their detention centres stuck in the middle of nowhere (Christmas Island, Nauru, Outback Australia), surrounded in fences topped by razor wire and patrolled by armed guards? I don't have a problem with them being detained, at least for a little while, but the manner in which they're kept is not necessary and makes it easy to lead to the assumption that they are harbouring dangerous criminals or that they pose some sort of threat to the population. Criminals are everywhere throughout society. Sure, check incoming refugees, but don't go beating them up as a greater threat to society than what's already out there.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
However not as secure. This option is only possible once the asylum seekers have been shown to be 'safe'. This is the part that takes most time (and should be sped up).

Certainly agree with you here, it should be sped up.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
See, here is an example of country that uses detention. The fact that they process quicker is a different point (and the same one I've been making).

But they treat the refugees humanely, unlike us.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Whatever the Pope says is irrelevant, or you think condoms are an affront to god?!!

Nope, I cannot stand the Pope. But for a Prime Minister who likes to try to take the high moral ground on such issues (Children Overboard "We do not need those sorts of people in our country"-John Howard), then surely if it's good enough for the Pope, then it's good enough for our leader.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't know all the details of that, but shipping in some farmers is hardly the same as accepting some unknowns off a boat. That he was possibly hypocritical in this case is hardly proof of your assertions.

The fact that he would ask some white people to come to Australia while building up boat people as being a threat to our nations security (which is how he won the last election) is not rascist? Then how would you describe it?

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Australia has not committed genocide. Atrocities were committed against Aborigines, however it has been shown that has been exaggerated.

Again, ever met a full blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal? No? Thats because they were all hunted down and killed in the 1800's. Thats called genocide. As for the exaggeration of the situation, if you're referring to Keith Windschuttles "Fabricating of Aboriginal History" it was found to have overlooked many key references on the subject that went against his study and the data that he did use for his book was also selectively chosen to put his view of the subject in the best possible light. Thats not research, thats bias, and if I could get into the Age archives I'd be able to show you the article where his books is debunked. Interesting to note that the minute this book was released, John Howard seized upon it as an excuse as to why he was right for not apologising.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The "Stolen Generation" has been blown out of proportion like so many of these emotive issues. The report quite clearly said that only a portion of that generation were removed from their parents and in some cases it was necessary. That some were removed forcibly and wrongly is certainly the case and was wrong, despite any apparent good intentions, however it has been exploited and twisted to suit certain views.

But, even so, shouldn't these people deserve an apology?

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by Frodo
So you have to agree that creating laws that can't be enforced is a just a beaurocratic gesture with no significance other than job creation.

No, they may not be able to be enforced, but they can make a country look bad internationally. If a country behaves in manner that is against a treaty its a signitory to, then other countries that have also signed the treaty can put diplomatic pressure on them, exclude them from other diplomatic efforts which may be beneficial to them in terms of trade or international standing. There are ways to deal with countries other than brute force. Its just the U.S. seems to prefer that method under George W.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by pazza
Not all the land claims are on mines!!!

Never said they were - simply that many claims are on valuable sites.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by moistie
Yes, but are their detention centres stuck in the middle of nowhere (Christmas Island, Nauru, Outback Australia), surrounded in fences topped by razor wire and patrolled by armed guards? I don't have a problem with them being detained, at least for a little while, but the manner in which they're kept is not necessary and makes it easy to lead to the assumption that they are harbouring dangerous criminals or that they pose some sort of threat to the population. Criminals are everywhere throughout society. Sure, check incoming refugees, but don't go beating them up as a greater threat to society than what's already out there.

The location is by reason that it is located close to where most of the boat people arrive. However, we are in agreement on the rest (conditions, etc) as I have already stated.

Nope, I cannot stand the Pope. But for a Prime Minister who likes to try to take the high moral ground on such issues (Children Overboard "We do not need those sorts of people in our country"-John Howard), then surely if it's good enough for the Pope, then it's good enough for our leader.

Haha - I think you are assuming something into politicians' thinking that is not there. They will take whatever side advantages them (all and not just Howard).

The fact that he would ask some white people to come to Australia while building up boat people as being a threat to our nations security (which is how he won the last election) is not rascist? Then how would you describe it?

We constantly let in people from different races all the time - immigration has remained high across many different backgrounds.

Again, ever met a full blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal? No? Thats because they were all hunted down and killed in the 1800's. Thats called genocide. As for the exaggeration of the situation, if you're referring to Keith Windschuttles "Fabricating of Aboriginal History" it was found to have overlooked many key references on the subject that went against his study and the data that he did use for his book was also selectively chosen to put his view of the subject in the best possible light. Thats not research, thats bias, and if I could get into the Age archives I'd be able to show you the article where his books is debunked. Interesting to note that the minute this book was released, John Howard seized upon it as an excuse as to why he was right for not apologising.

As I said no doubt atrocities were caused against Aborigines, but some of these were also exaggerated. That happens in history. After Windschuttle's book came out, most of the arguments against it were of the ad hominem style rather than on the facts. In the end, even though he had made some mistakes, much of his work could not be refuted and some historians stated they made assumptions.

But, even so, shouldn't these people deserve an apology?

From whom though? Why apologise for something you are not responsible for?

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The location is by reason that it is located close to where most of the boat people arrive. However, we are in agreement on the rest (conditions, etc) as I have already stated.

Yeah, good point, apart from the centre in central SA. But, if they can move refugees to SA, why not to a populated area? Its because they don't want the refugees to have the chance to mingle with the general public. Once the human interest stories come out of what these people have been through, then the government can't score points off them appearing to be criminals without appearing callous and bang goes their big run at the next election.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Haha - I think you are assuming something into politicians' thinking that is not there. They will take whatever side advantages them (all and not just Howard).

Sooooooo very true. So very sadly true.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
From whom though? Why apologise for something you are not responsible for?

But people who participated in the stolen generation would still be alive. Even if it's one old man, does that mean we shouldn't apologise? How many times did Germany apologise for WWII? Germans (as a people) are still apologising for that and it was nearly 60 years ago.

Why should there be a time limit on apologies? Just because the people who committed the atrocity are no longer alive doesn't mean that all should be forgotten. The people wronged will still bear the scars, and an important part of repairing the damage done is to acknowledge what occurred and apologise (not express 'profound regret'). In my eyes, a nation is viewed in a bad light if it does not face up to its past actions. You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for what occurred in your country, or for what your country did, just because no-one who committed the crimes is alive.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by moistie
Why should there be a time limit on apologies? Just because the people who committed the atrocity are no longer alive doesn't mean that all should be forgotten. The people wronged will still bear the scars, and an important part of repairing the damage done is to acknowledge what occurred and apologise (not express 'profound regret'). In my eyes, a nation is viewed in a bad light if it does not face up to its past actions. You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for what occurred in your country, or for what your country did, just because no-one who committed the crimes is alive.

In some ways apologies try to focus on who is to blame, which is a mistake IMHO. Instead we should be focusing on moving forward, understanding what the Aborigines want and what is reasonable and fair to provide.

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
In some ways apologies try to focus on who is to blame, which is a mistake IMHO. Instead we should be focusing on moving forward, understanding what the Aborigines want and what is reasonable and fair to provide.

Yes, we should focus the blame on the nation, not on a group of people. Then its possible to move forward with the Aboriginals feeling vindicated for having been treated in such a way. This will go some way to the Aboriginal people being able to say 'We were wronged, they admitted it, we can move forward.'

But I do agree, we do need to focus on moving forward, and it appears some useful steps may be being made towards helping Aboriginal communities.

 

[skipper kelly]

The abos were wronged, but if the govt. says sorry then look out compensation claims, here we come.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

I don't like sourpusses such as Simon Crean to govern the country.

John Howard appeals to me more than anything.

I also am a massive Liberal voter. I won't vote for any other party.

 

[bugman5]

Originally posted by goaldrush
I don't like sourpusses such as Simon Crean to govern the country.

John Howard appeals to me more than anything.

I also am a massive Liberal voter. I won't vote for any other party.

Exactly the reason democracy doesn't work.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by bugman5
Exactly the reason democracy doesn't work.

Yep - can't fault that reasoning!!

 

[dan warna]

John howard is a liar, he is dishonest, he brown noses foreign powers, he is self serving with a narrow view of the world...can't tell the difference between him, bob brown, pauline hanson and simon crean most of the time

anyone who thing howard is a great leader, or alternatively think that somehow simon crean will lead us to the promised land, or even stranger that bob brown is a future PM is living in cloud cuckoo land and should get a different job to that of a party staff stooge.

Voting is difficult when they are all scumbags really...

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by goaldrush
I don't like sourpusses such as Simon Crean to govern the country.

John Howard appeals to me more than anything.

I also am a massive Liberal voter. I won't vote for any other party.

There is hope for Labor yet

 

[BloodyPrincess]

Originally posted by goaldrush


I also am a massive Liberal voter. I won't vote for any other party.

On behalf of the ALP, thank you.

 

[dan warna]

what did he mean by massive?
is he a larger person, in which case what has that got to with it?
or does he vote multiple times, in which case he is commiting electoral fraud....

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by carlyp
Thats a fair point but surely it isnt the PM's job to remember every little person that should be invited. He'd have that much going on in his head that he probably didnt even remember her. Isnt that why Pollies have staffers? To remember and do what the PM forgets to do?

Just a thought for you carlyp, did you ever consider she was deliberately excluded?

Not good form to have her complaining about the meagre payout from the government for her husbands death to the president is it?

 

[Joffaboy]

I Like John Howard because he is honest when dealing with things such as the waterfront dispute, medicare, full sale of telstra, claiming that there would never be a GST, Tampa, children overboard, and the reasons we went to war against a country who had never threatened us.

His honesty and integrity is one that I could only expect from a Conservative Prime Minister.

All hail the far rights pin up boy - Adolph Howard.

 

[pazza]

Originally posted by understudy
Just a thought for you carlyp, did you ever consider she was deliberately excluded?

Not good form to have her complaining about the meagre payout from the government for her husbands death to the president is it?

That question was posed in Parliament Question Time last week. Howard flatly denied it and he said he has unreservedly apologised for what happened and that HE is ultimately responsible for what he termed a "regretable mistake".

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by pazza
That question was posed in Parliament Question Time last week. Howard flatly denied it and he said he has unreservedly apologised for what happened and that HE is ultimately responsible for what he termed a "regretable mistake".

right must be true then.

thanks for clearing that up.

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by pazza
Howard flatly denied it and he said he has unreservedly apologised for what happened

MIRACLES DO HAPPEN! He's done it once, can he do it again?

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by pazza
and that HE is ultimately responsible for what he termed a "regretable mistake".

TWICE IN THE ONE SENTENCE! Amazing!

 

[pazza]

I am sure I heard him utter the word "sorry" in the same answer!

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by pazza
I am sure I heard him utter the word "sorry" in the same answer!

HOLY CRAP! We have a trifecta! That would have to pay VERY looooooooooooong odds on the tote.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by moistie
HOLY CRAP! We have a trifecta! That would have to pay VERY looooooooooooong odds on the tote.

What colour skin does this women have? That would lower the odds a bit I would reckon.