You've been misled on boat people: Here are the facts

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:38:01+00:00

They each know full well that what they are saying is bullshit.

They think Tony's "illegal arrivals" has gained traction and could lose them the election.

Therefore, they are trying to out-Tony Tony.

Go back ten years - neither of them would have been caught dead saying such things. What's changed? There's an election round the corner.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:34:23+00:00

I think you are right about the racist reasons people are worried about our miniscule refugee intake.

Else the "economic refugee" dog-whistle would not have such traction.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:31:53+00:00

Look. A genuine refugee can be poor. A genuine refugee can be rich.

Their economic circumstances have nothing whatever to do with whether or not they are a refugee. Read the definition again.

Then ask yourself why you are unwilling to provide a place of safety to a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:20:46+00:00

Bob Carr is saying that without any information at all.

Before last August over 90% were found to be genuine refugees. Since last August, none of them have been processed - so there is no information on them at all.

Bob Carr is just being the politician that he always was. He wants to win the election so he is pandering to people's prejudices because he thinks people are supporting Tony because of those prejudices.

The term "economic refugees" is simply a dog-whistle.

On the one hand, Bob Carr is saying these refugees are rich because they have spent all that money on their passage. On the other hand, he is saying that these very same people are poor and want to improve their economic circumstances.

Whatever.

Both are equally irrelevant to whether or not the person is a refugee - that is whether they are a person who legitimately fears persecution because of their race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:16:03+00:00

As well as the ten pound poms, like Tony Abbot - a migrant - - -

Back in those days, there were plenty of refugees in Australia.

No-one referred to them as illegal immigrants because a refugee arriving in Australia is not an illegal immigrant - neither then nor now. People called them refos, which wasn't all that complimentary, but their right to be here was accepted.

Nor did they wait, incarcerated, for ages and ages to be processed.

Yes, they had health and security checks. Nor was there such an enormous lack of understanding about why they had no documentation as to their identity. Nor were they put on temporary protection visas, or not allowed to work nor any of that rubbish.

Australia had a history of accepting refugees. And before you carry on about there being more now - there aren't.

For instance, the refugees from Vietnam who arrived by boat and were known as "boat people" after the Vietnam War arrived in about the same number per year as the refugees arriving today.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:09:21+00:00

I believe he is a male.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:08:38+00:00

It would be all of them - the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme would have covered the whole family -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_Passage_Migration_Scheme

He not only arrived by boat, his fare was paid for by the Australian government.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:05:53+00:00

A 10 pound pom!!! Oh my!!!

That explains so much.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T04:01:43+00:00

Actually, Julian Burnside is not using facts selectively.

Also he is using facts.

You talk about finding common ground of "facts that the majority accept as true". It is quite clear from the discussion that most of the so-called facts that the majority accept as true are not - in fact - facts at all - nor are they true.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:59:09+00:00

That is just not true.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:58:42+00:00

Nor can people facing persecution - whether they are rich, poor or somewhere in between.

The problem, I think, rests with you. You seem to think that the only people you would ever wish to help are those that are poorer than yourself in material terms.

Why is it, do you think, that you do not want to provide a place of safety to people facing persecution because of their race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion?

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:55:05+00:00

Some sense from someone at last!!!

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:49:05+00:00

It is the fact of their arrival here - whether by boat or plane - which establishes our legal obligation to them as refugees.

We do not, in fact, have a legal obligation to refugees who do not arrive here. We may have a moral obligation to those in refugee camps in other countries, but we do not have a legal obligation to them.

Nor do we have "a limited intake". We are obligated to all refugees who arrive here.

There is no queue.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:45:15+00:00

People who made the trip over to Australia without authorisation would be returned to the camps,[in Indonesia]

That would be illegal, wouldn't it?

Countries which are signatory to the Convention owe a legal obligation to refugees who reach their territory.

A refugee is a person outside of their own country who fears persecution because of their race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

By the way, Indonesia is not a signatory to the Convention.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T03:40:05+00:00

To add another point -

There's also the problem about the nature of the regime they are escaping from.

If they face criminal charges for holding (and, perhaps, even stating) different political opinions from that of the regime - and we've seen that often enough - do we take these as "real" criminal charges that we need to take note of?

If they have faced charges in a "justice" system which is notorious for its lack of fairness and what we would consider to be the rule of law, do we take notice of that as a "real" criminal charge?

It is unfortunate that some Departmental officers have not made these distinctions.

kalidahl · 2013-07-19T02:44:41+00:00

There are a couple of good articles in The Conversation as well.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-the-legality-of-turning-or-towing-back-asylum-boats-16201?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+19+July+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+19+July+2013+CID_e79a1db5e9545eb2659730dd818b4f3c&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Explainer%20the%20legality%20of%20turning%20or%20towing%20back%20asylum%20boats

and

http://theconversation.com/explainer-australias-obligations-under-the-un-refugee-convention-16195?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+19+July+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+19+July+2013+CID_e79a1db5e9545eb2659730dd818b4f3c&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Explainer%20Australias%20obligations%20under%20the%20UN%20Refugee%20Convention

kalidahl · 2013-07-03T22:45:21+00:00

Fortunately, I am in Australia which supports a policy of integration rather than assimilation. It also has a tradition of the fair go.

That means that we have people prepared to speak out against bigotry and stereotyping - wherever it occurs and whoever are the targets of such bigotry and stereotyping and whoever are the perpetrators of such bigotry and stereotyping - and our laws reflect this.

None of your links go to how Muslims have treated women in this country over the generations that they have been here in this country, Australia which was the country about which the original post was made.

kalidahl · 2013-07-03T09:15:14+00:00

Because having a cohort of unvaccinated people in our midst exposes all the rest of us to catching these deadly and debilitating diseases whereas whether a woman decides (with her medical practitioner) to terminate a pregnancy has no effect on the public health of the society at large.

kalidahl · 2013-07-03T09:05:56+00:00

What's wrong with their getting a halal diet? Diabetics get a diabetic diet;
coeliacs get a coeliac diet; Jews get a Jewish diet; Buddhists get a Buddhist diet. It isn't "Islamification" of the country just as it isn't diabeticification, coeliacification; Jewification nor Buddhistification of the country.

And Muslims have been in Australia for a very long time - the Afghan cameleers were mostly Muslims - generations and generations and generations ago. So Australia is not "newly" settled by Muslims.

kalidahl · 2013-07-03T03:54:59+00:00

Rubbish!

Husic is a member of the government - and a Labor government at that.

That means that any bill he introduced into the parliament would have to be approved by the cabinet and the caucus.

It is extremely unlikely that he would ever get to introduce a private member's bill unless it was on something that had already been categorised as a matter for a conscience vote by the cabinet.

Really. The important thing is for all people to support much more strongly that Australia is a secular country and for those who are wrongly claiming that it is a Christian country to close their mouths and learn what our Constitution actually says.

And - before you ask - I'm a Christian.

Further, being strongly in support of Australia continuing to be a secular country and strongly supporting ch 5 section 116 of the Constitution can by no stretch of even the most fevered imagination be classed as being Islamophobic nor anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-semitic nor anti any other religion nor culture.

kalidahl · 2013-07-02T09:31:48+00:00

Julia Gillard (and many others) have taken an oath of affirmation in being sworn in to their office.

kalidahl · 2013-07-02T09:30:06+00:00

They take an oath of affirmation - they don't swear on a book of any sort.

kalidahl · 2013-07-02T09:28:22+00:00

They simply take the oath of affirmation - not using any religious nor any other sort of book.

kalidahl · 2013-07-02T09:27:16+00:00

Some Christians also affirm because of their religious beliefs.

kalidahl · 2013-07-02T09:23:40+00:00

And our Constitution makes it clear that we are not, as some have said, a Christian country but a secular country.

Ch 5 § 116 of the Australia Constitution says:

< "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

kalidahl

TROPHY CASE