Tampa vs Corona Cruise Ships, What's the Difference?

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Thanks for sharing that. It seems distress is not well defined. Since this is your thread, how about you tell us exactly what you have in mind when you used the word distress? From there we can start to work out what the overriding principle is that you want to focus on. That will help us work out what information is relevant vs not. Indeed, there are many differences between Tampa and these cruise ships. So far you've labelled the differences raised by some here as being irrelevant to the discussion, but it's honestly not that clear why or how to work out which differences count and which do not. Eg It could turn out not to be a left vs right values issue, but something more like value set differences between seafarers and non seafarers. I am aware that, as a collective, sailors have some guiding principles (e.g. always respond to an SOS call no matter what) but I have no clue what they might be because I'm not a sailor.

All that matters is that the Tampa and the cruise ships have people in distress on them, everything else is irrelevant.

The second screen shot I posted above from the UNHCR website is actually provided from the International Chamber of Shipping if you're wondering about seafarers guiding principles.

The question is pretty simple, why no hue and cry in favour of allowing the cruise ships to dock and the passengers disembark? With the Tampa you had the country at least divided yet with the cruise ships there is absolutely zero support it seems. I would have thought that those who are old enough and supported those on the Tampa being landed on Australian shores would have been all over this, but nope, not a thing.

I'm with Balls In on this one.

I'll be interested to see if at any stage the master of one of these cruise ships currently floating around the globe declares an emergency and what the response would be to it.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

All that matters is that the Tampa and the cruise ships have people in distress on them, everything else is irrelevant.

The second screen shot I posted above from the UNHCR website is actually provided from the International Chamber of Shipping if you're wondering about seafarers guiding principles.

The question is pretty simple, why no hue and cry in favour of allowing the cruise ships to dock and the passengers disembark? With the Tampa you had the country at least divided yet with the cruise ships there is absolutely zero support it seems. I would have thought that those who are old enough and supported those on the Tampa being landed on Australian shores would have been all over this, but nope, not a thing.

I'm with Balls In on this one.

I'll be interested to see if at any stage the master of one of these cruise ships currently floating around the globe declares an emergency and what the response would be to it.

If you are not able to tell us what differences are relevant and what differences are not, or, if you're going to make the rules up as you go, then it'll be impossible for anybody to answer your question. How else can your question be answered other than through pointing out the differences between the two situations? Thus far your approach has been to ask "what's the difference between Tampa and the cruise ships?" only to say "irrelevant" when people suggest something. So what exactly do you want?

Presumably, you either haven't made your mind up on this or your current opinion is potentially changeable, otherwise why would you bother to ask the question in a discussion board? Or is this just a virtue signal? You're normally a good poster here so I'd be surprised if you were looking to virtue signal.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

If you are not able to tell us what differences are relevant and what differences are not, or, if you're going to make the rules up as you go, then it'll be impossible for anybody to answer your question. How else can your question be answered other than through pointing out the differences between the two situations? Thus far your approach has been to ask "what's the difference between Tampa and the cruise ships?" only to say "irrelevant" when people suggest something. So what exactly do you want?

Presumably, you either haven't made your mind up on this or your current opinion is potentially changeable, otherwise why would you bother to ask the question in a discussion board? Or is this just a virtue signal? You're normally a good poster here so I'd be surprised if you were looking to virtue signal.

It was a rhetorical question in the OP heading because in my opinion, at the heart of it, there is no difference. People in distress in limbo stuck at sea.

My question is more referring to the different reactions to both situations. Half the country wanted to sink the Tampa and the other half were happy to let them just come in. Cruise ships, there's really just nothing from anyone.

Why aren't the champions of the Tampa screaming from the rooftops for the people on these Voyage of the Damned ships?

 

[Patrick Bullet]

It was a rhetorical question in the OP heading because in my opinion, at the heart of it, there is no difference. People in distress in limbo stuck at sea.

My question is more referring to the different reactions to both situations. Half the country wanted to sink the Tampa and the other half were happy to let them just come in. Cruise ships, there's really just nothing from anyone.

Why aren't the champions of the Tampa screaming from the rooftops for the people on these Voyage of the Damned ships?

I think the points in my post still apply to your final question. It could be because there are differences between cruise ships and Tampa (all of which you say are irrelevant). Or it could be that non-sailors just don't subscribe to same the code of conduct that sailors do. Most likely both.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I think the points in my post still apply to your final question. It could be because there are differences between cruise ships and Tampa (all of which you say are irrelevant). Or it could be that non-sailors just don't subscribe to same the code of conduct that sailors do. Most likely both.

Your points, imo, don't stand. Whether it be a passenger ship or a cargo ship, there is no difference to how they should be treated whether it be on the high seas or in territorial waters.

 

[Sainteric]

The Left wants to save the world, but only if they can do it from a safe distance.

And with someone else's money and soldiers

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Your points, imo, don't stand. Whether it be a passenger ship or a cargo ship, there is no difference to how they should be treated whether it be on the high seas or in territorial waters.

Then how do you expect anybody to answer this question?

Why aren't the champions of the Tampa screaming from the rooftops for the people on these Voyage of the Damned ships?

If there is no answer that you'll accept, then you're just virtue signalling. It's fine to do that - you certainly wouldn't be the first; it's just a bit disappointing to see it from a normally thoughtful poster. But by all means carry on!

Peace out!

 

[Number37]

Doing a search, there's not a lot of history on here about the Tampa, understandable considering it was about 19 years ago.

Take out the SAS boarding and their eventual transport to Nauru aboard the HMAS Manoora, changes in policy etc etc the heart of the matter was that we wouldn't allow the MV Tampa to enter Australian Territorial waters or to dock at Christmas Island and off load the asylum seekers. There were howls of protest from all levels of Australian society about us not living up to our International obligations.

Fast forward to now and we have scores of cruise ships all over the globe, including Australia on both coasts that are stranded. Where are the cries about everyone's international obligations to allow these ships to dock that obviously have passengers and crews under duress, the silence is deafening.

Those asylum seekers on the Tampa didn't sail here on the Tampa.
Their boat was in distress and the Tampa picked them up in International Waters.

The Tampa picked them up because instead of going to their aid when they knew they were in distress the Australian govt tried to get the Indonesians to do it instead.
The nearest port was Xmas Island.
That the Tampa was too large to dock at Xmas Island was the excuse the Australian govt used to get it to an Indonesian port, which was much further than Xmas Island but could accommodate such a large vessel.


The cruise ships should be allowed to dock, the passengers should be allowed to disembark & they should be detained until they are medically cleared. NOT HELD IN INDEFINITE DETENTION.

 

[Kwality]

Doing a search, there's not a lot of history on here about the Tampa, understandable considering it was about 19 years ago.

Take out the SAS boarding and their eventual transport to Nauru aboard the HMAS Manoora, changes in policy etc etc the heart of the matter was that we wouldn't allow the MV Tampa to enter Australian Territorial waters or to dock at Christmas Island and off load the asylum seekers. There were howls of protest from all levels of Australian society about us not living up to our International obligations.

Fast forward to now and we have scores of cruise ships all over the globe, including Australia on both coasts that are stranded. Where are the cries about everyone's international obligations to allow these ships to dock that obviously have passengers and crews under duress, the silence is deafening.

Only the political class are listening & they are staunch as ever, not a care in the world ....

 

[Kwality]

Those asylum seekers on the Tampa didn't sail here on the Tampa.
Their boat was in distress and the Tampa picked them up in International Waters.

The Tampa picked them up because instead of going to their aid when they knew they were in distress the Australian govt tried to get the Indonesians to do it instead.
The nearest port was Xmas Island.
That the Tampa was too large to dock at Xmas Island was the excuse the Australian govt used to get it to an Indonesian port, which was much further than Xmas Island but could accommodate such a large vessel.


The cruise ships should be allowed to dock, the passengers should be allowed to disembark & they should be detained until they are medically cleared. NOT HELD IN INDEFINITE DETENTION.

Where would you put the 000s of them,how many medical staff would you strip from the Aus hospitals to care for them.

 

[Kwality]

Half the country wanted to sink the Tampa and the other half were happy to let them just come in.

You need to get out a little ... sink the Tampa .... plenty thought the actions taken were right, Aus was being gamed. Must have been the 3rd half who counted on polling day.

 

[Number37]

Where would you put the 000s of them,how many medical staff would you strip from the Aus hospitals to care for them.

Intercontinental hotels around Australia, preferably rooms with a 'city view'.

Zero. Use defence force medical personnel.

 

[Kwality]

Intercontinental hotels around Australia, preferably rooms with a 'city view'.

Zero. Use defence force medical personnel.

Buy that, there are plenty of them ...

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Currently having the potential to be a disaster in WA.

 

[CM86]

Thanks for sharing that. It seems distress is not well defined. Since this is your thread, how about you tell us exactly what you have in mind when you used the word distress? From there we can start to work out what the overriding principle is that you want to focus on. That will help us work out what information is relevant vs not. Indeed, there are many differences between Tampa and these cruise ships. So far you've labelled the differences raised by some here as being irrelevant to the discussion, but it's honestly not that clear why or how to work out which differences count and which do not. Eg It could turn out not to be a left vs right values issue, but something more like value set differences between seafarers and non seafarers. I am aware that, as a collective, sailors have some guiding principles (e.g. always respond to an SOS call no matter what) but I have no clue what they might be because I'm not a sailor.

If you are not able to tell us what differences are relevant and what differences are not, or, if you're going to make the rules up as you go, then it'll be impossible for anybody to answer your question. How else can your question be answered other than through pointing out the differences between the two situations? Thus far your approach has been to ask "what's the difference between Tampa and the cruise ships?" only to say "irrelevant" when people suggest something. So what exactly do you want?

Presumably, you either haven't made your mind up on this or your current opinion is potentially changeable, otherwise why would you bother to ask the question in a discussion board? Or is this just a virtue signal? You're normally a good poster here so I'd be surprised if you were looking to virtue signal.

I think the points in my post still apply to your final question. It could be because there are differences between cruise ships and Tampa (all of which you say are irrelevant). Or it could be that non-sailors just don't subscribe to same the code of conduct that sailors do. Most likely both.

Then how do you expect anybody to answer this question?



If there is no answer that you'll accept, then you're just virtue signalling. It's fine to do that - you certainly wouldn't be the first; it's just a bit disappointing to see it from a normally thoughtful poster. But by all means carry on!

Peace out!

Great posts. I think you nailed it with the last one.

It's a statement, not a thread for discussion.

 

[E Shed]

What a ridiculous false equivalence.

The premise in this thread could be deconstructed by a primary school kid with half a brain in 30 seconds.

Is this really how stupid you RW people are?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

What a ridiculous false equivalence.

The premise in this thread could be deconstructed by a primary school kid with half a brain in 30 seconds.

Is this really how stupid you RW people are?

Go ahead deconstruct it instead of having a sook.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The handling of the Tampa affair almost, and in some cases did turn us into an international pariah for not stepping up and fulfilling our international obligations in helping people at sea in distress.

Fast forward 20 years and virtually every government on the planet is going their hardest to keep these ships away from their ports and the population in the main are either outright supporting that decision or are silent.

At an individual or collective level it just comes down to plain old integrity, imo.

 

[CM86]

Go ahead deconstruct it instead of having a sook.

Are asylum seekers typically virus-ridden and likely to affect the nation?

Other than boats being involved I don't see many similarities for a comparison.

There's no comparison, those on the Tampa spent years in immigration detention, those on the Diamond Princess got off the boat without so much as cursory glance from customs.

these cruise ships are known to have a deadly virus on board - ergo anybody coming off them goes to hospital or 14 days quarantine

once they are clear they are free to move about in the community.

I think the pandemic changes the situation a bit.

We have an obligation to help in general.
We have an obligation to help asylum seekrs.
We have an obligation to help those in distress.

But not if the risks to our nation outweigh that obligation. When that happens we need to look for other ways to help.
It's why we don't just send every cent to a poverty stricken nation. Because it would have an overwhelmingly negative effect on our country, meaning we would be unable to actually continue helping others.


You pose an interesting question. But I think it's deeply flawed.
Asylum seekers have no country of origin they can return to, they have fled for their lives.

Cruise ship passengers have made the choice to get onto a cruise ship during a pandemic.


Now, we need to help these people. It's our obligation.
But that help means testing and quarantining. Not just letting them dock and walk free with no checks.
It's of course a very complex situation that needs to be dealt with quickly and safely.

One is a genuine threat to national security and the health of tens of thousands of Australians.

The other was the Tampa.

Those asylum seekers on the Tampa didn't sail here on the Tampa.
Their boat was in distress and the Tampa picked them up in International Waters.

The Tampa picked them up because instead of going to their aid when they knew they were in distress the Australian govt tried to get the Indonesians to do it instead.
The nearest port was Xmas Island.
That the Tampa was too large to dock at Xmas Island was the excuse the Australian govt used to get it to an Indonesian port, which was much further than Xmas Island but could accommodate such a large vessel.


The cruise ships should be allowed to dock, the passengers should be allowed to disembark & they should be detained until they are medically cleared. NOT HELD IN INDEFINITE DETENTION.

 

[Kwality]

The handling of the Tampa affair almost, and in some cases did turn us into an international pariah for not stepping up and fulfilling our international obligations in helping people at sea in distress.

Fast forward 20 years and virtually every government on the planet is going their hardest to keep these ships away from their ports and the population in the main are either outright supporting that decision or are silent.

At an individual or collective level it just comes down to plain old integrity, imo.

Can you give some examples of how we were treated as a pariah?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Doing a search, there's not a lot of history on here about the Tampa, understandable considering it was about 19 years ago.

Take out the SAS boarding and their eventual transport to Nauru aboard the HMAS Manoora, changes in policy etc etc the heart of the matter was that we wouldn't allow the MV Tampa to enter Australian Territorial waters or to dock at Christmas Island and off load the asylum seekers. There were howls of protest from all levels of Australian society about us not living up to our International obligations.

Fast forward to now and we have scores of cruise ships all over the globe, including Australia on both coasts that are stranded. Where are the cries about everyone's international obligations to allow these ships to dock that obviously have passengers and crews under duress, the silence is deafening.

I don't think you really understand what a pandemic is.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

FYI

when my grandfather arrived by boat after the war, they were sent to concentration camps in country Victoria until they were considered disease free, skills recognised and had sufficient english skills (low standard of course)

You may want to rethink your choice of words there.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So both sides agree.

No more boats that pose a national security threat.

Good.

Sorry, are you just a little bit thick?

 

[Gethelred]

The cruise ship passengers and their operators aren't even engaging in illegal activity unlike the Tampa. They are the victims here but they do pose a national security threat nevertheless. I don't want their virus spread on the mainland no more than I wanted the welfare seekers and the risks they pose but at least I'm not hypocritical about it.

How is it hypocritical that people do not want possibly infected people to break quarantine before the allotted time is up?

I mean, how are these not two separate issues?

 

[random260]

There are to different issues. Is the cornavirus ship seeking asylum? No they are going back.

These are the two other explanation

1) State is getting blame not PM. And blame isn't too harsh it was a minor mistake.
2) How can people take it seriously when the ship is called RUBY PRINCESS? From a pure messaging stand point nobody is going to bat and eye lid. Its called a ******* ruby princess. Half the people are prob going WTF and laughing at the name of it and how its treated as a monster. Like who is going to take ship called a ruby princess seriously as a threat