Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Abbott’s interview on Insiders with Barrie Cassidy’s showed clearly our potential prime minister’s arrogance, duplicity and dangerousness, writes senior correspondent Barry Everingham.
IF EVER Australians needed a reason not to vote for a Government led by Tony Abbott, the Opposition Leader’s performance with Barrie Cassidy on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday morning was reason enough.
Abbott was cold to the point of cruel, humourless and stiff, and his eyes said it all.
When he remarked that Australian sailors knew they had to do things they didn’t like to protect their country, a visible sigh of disbelief surely was heard around the land. Now I, along with others, have been saying for some time that every time an asylum seeker –man, woman or child – is drowned in their effort to make a better life here, Abbott would be delighted. Anything below the belt is good enough for him if it gets his message across.
Now, it seems, the precious lives of Australian servicemen and women are expendable as well.
Surely Abbott heeded the words of former Navy and Army top brass when they warned about towing boats back to Indonesia?
Not Abbott.
And his smirking non-answer to Cassidy’s question, asking if he had told this to the Indonesian President when they met in Darwin last Friday was another indication of the duplicity of this man.
I don’t make public what was said in a private meeting, said Abbott, or words to that effect.
Cassidy landed another blow.
Come on, I have my contacts — you didn’t, did you?
Smirk.
Well, I have mine as well and I can tell you definitively — Abbott did not have the guts to raise the matter with the Indonesians at that meeting.
Julia Gillard would have had her own sources of what was and what wasn’t said during the meeting and that’s why I’m sure she went for jugular by branding him a “coward”.
The Liberals are just plain crazy sticking with Abbott — a rough pugilist with absolutely nothing to recommend him.
Melbourne’s august broadsheet The Age published a devastating piece on Abbott in the Saturday edition of the paper, pointing out that he has adopted propaganda techniques used by Adolf Hitler when he wanted to get a message across.
There is a story elsewhere on this site with more details about that exposé — for that is precisely what it was.
In even thinking of turning back the boats Abbott is displaying a real lack of compassion for his fellow human beings including the gallant men and women of our armed services.
Every time this man sinks as low as he did last weekend, why are we surprised he still finds room for another gutter to sink even lower into!
God only knows what the country will get from him this week.
Malcolm Turnbull is the man the Liberals need.
He is the man the country needs.
Because if Abbott gets the keys to The Lodge, we will sink into a disgraceful morass of extreme right-wing cruelty reminiscent of a dark time in world history.
And Abbott will start, as that other did, with the marginalised and the most vulnerable.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
44 Comments
Abbott was cold to the point of cruel, humourless and stiff, and his eyes said it all. Barry Everngham. #AusPol #AusDem http://t.co/vJHRwVwB
But Gillard is scarcely any better with her lunatic plan to shove refugees off to Malaysia where they will rot for the rest of their lives or be deported to their deaths. She backed the Oakeshott plan of shipping them to Iran, Iraq, Äfghanistan, Sri Lanka, China and other source countries as well and now has this inane group of tossers supposedly coming up with a plan that we already have.
It’s called everyone has the right to seek asylum;
She said this in her Lowy speech:
We should also understand that what drives the peaks and troughs in the
numbers of boats trying to get to Australia has less to do with what we do
here and more to do with the conditions people are escaping – conditions like
war, genocide, imprisonment without trial, torture, harassment by authorities,
the disappearance of family and friends, and children growing up in refugee
camps with no prospect of ever again seeing their home.
AND THEN TRIED TO LEGISLATE FOR THEM TO BE SENT HOME OR TO MALAYSIA TO THOSE EXACT CONDITIONS AND MADE THE REFUGEE PRISONS WORSE THAN RUDDOCK’S,
This is what Gillard said of Sri Lankans fleeing the killing fields in 2009: The UNHCR report confirmed the improved human rights and security
situation in Sri Lanka and that displaced people continue to return to their
homes. Instead of automatically presuming that particular groups in Sri Lanka
are refugees, the UNCHR states that all asylum claims must now be
considered on a case by case basis, noting that some groups may still be at
risk.
With the new information, acceptance rates are likely to fall.
Today, in light of these circumstances, I am announcing the Government has
decided to lift immediately the suspension on processing claims for Sri
Lankan. Those currently in detention will have their claims processed against
a range of country information including the revised UNHCR report I have described.
So I have a message for people in Sri Lanka who might be considering attempting the journey to Australia. Do not pay a people smuggler, do not risk your life, only to arrive in Australian waters and find that far, far more likely
than not you will be quickly sent home by plane.”
To date no Tamils have been sent home and acceptance rates for Tamils by sea and air is running at over 80% with the rest of the cases still undecided.
She said this of Afghans:
The other group of arrivals for whom processing has been suspended is
people from Afghanistan. So far this year more than 60 per cent of all asylum
seekers arriving by boat have come from that country. Although there was a
time when large numbers of Afghan asylum seekers were granted refugee
status, since April there have more than 500 primary refusal decisions for
Afghans. During the past month the primary refusal rate has exceeded 70 per
cent.
Currently the overturn rate on those refusals is running at 90%, which means that 95% of Afghans are being accepted.
The current over turn rates for asylum claims assessed by the racists in DIAC are Afghanisan 89%, Iran 84%, Iraqi 82%, Sri Lanka 65%, Stateless 90% and other 71% with an average of 83% of refused claims being wrong..
And the terrible thing is I know for certain that Gillard sincerely believes that refugees should stay home.
There is then this in the speech:
The Opposition is trying to sell the Australian community a fairy tale in which
all you have to do is go out to an asylum seeker boat and turn it around and
everything will be fixed – but this fairytale is not the facts.
The facts are the boat will be scuttled and start to sink.
The facts are that this nation would then be confronted with a stark choice:
either we could leave the scene in the certain knowledge people including
children would drown or we could rescue the asylum seekers from the water.
Today let me say one thing loud and clear: our nation would not leave children
to drown. We are Australians and our values will never allow us to embrace
this kind of evil. So, inevitably, the so-called strategy of turning the boats back
would become a strategy of rescuing asylum seekers from the water with all
the risks that entails to the lives of defence and customs personnel.
The slogan is hollow and Mr Abbott knows it.
Contrast that statment that it would be evil with these stories proven that we did just that.
http://sievx.com/
That the Liberals would someone like that to represent them and lead their party, says it all about the so-called “Liberals”.
…That the Liberals would ELECT someone like that…
Last night, Barry, on the ABC’s Q&A, Malcolm Turnball acted like all obedient lapdogs and followed his master, Abbott, by saying the solution to asylum seekers is pushing the boats back and this solution is not a theoretical solution, he claim, since it was tried and it succeeded. So much for Turnball.
All Liberals will sell their souls to win office.
MarilynS I am a coward for I can’t read links like sievx.com without bawling my eyes out. Let me say Gillard as a women we hope is a lot better. Caught between a rock and a hard place or walking tight rope neither of which is palatable and offers no solution.
Yes, the Greens philosophy of sticking to the Law and International Conventions we signed might be admirable but it’s a long swim back to regain the moral high ground and values, we lost under Howard’s leadership of lies, deceit and babies over board.
The Greens are not Independents but part and parcel of the Gillard’s Government and as such should not have taken the liberty to side with the Liberals knowing the outcome would damage the government.
The Greens like the ‘Scorpion and the Crocodile’ should be made to realize there is no value in killing the host if it drowns in the process. What sort of marriage is it when one party is allowed to publicly derail or sabotage the other party. Labor is justified in being thoroughly pissed off with them.
One would have expected some sort of compromise from the Greens and the Liberals to allow Australia to put a gentler, kinder face on the whole refugee scenario however Abbot has already welched on being part of Defence Chief Angus Houston working party and the Greens with their uncompromising position have literally put the kibosh on it. I would not vote for them now.
I agree Lydia, the Greens are incredibly stupid & short-sighted by blocking the policy on refugees – especially in light of the known rorts & cheating that has been proven to have been occurring under the current system, & most especially given the many deaths at sea. The only time they have a chance to have any real input at all, is if they work with the government. By refusing to, they are basically handing the keys to the lodge to Tony Abbott, & throwing away any input whatsoever, thereby throwing away all the environmental progress made to date as well. The Greens have lost their environmental credentials, having been infiltrated by a bunch of loony extremists with personal agendas. It’s a great shame, because our country badly needs a mainstream grown-up party that stands up for the environment, right now. Having loopy people like Marilyn Shepherd trolling all the online discussions as representative of the Greens views, doesn’t do much for their reputation either. The Greens are total fools to allow this one issue to sink their only chance at having input in government. They are basically handing Tony Abbott the job of prime minister just to indulge in naive, futile, juvenile grandstanding. The prospect of having a PM who has many of the traits of a psychopath, is a very scary thing to contemplate.
In the interview on The Insiders the following exchange is recorded:
BARRIE CASSIDY: I still don’t see, if you take away the fuel for example, they keep going until they run out of fuel, then it’s Australia’s obligation to rescue them.
TONY ABBOTT: Well as I said Barrie, it’s been done in the past. The professionalism of the Navy was up to it in the past. I have no doubt the Navy is just as professional now as it was in 2001.
As Abbott did not reject the claim that Australia’s Navy will remove fuel then this raises the question: Is Australia breaching the Law of the Sea.
An article was written by Cameron Stewart of The Australian and it was titled “Law of the sea versus the dictates of Canberra”
Here is the link if you can access it, if not I provide the following quotes from it:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/law-of-the-sea-versus-the-dictates-of-canberra/story-fn9hm1gu-1226295248652
“EARLY last month a revealing document written by Australia’s Border Protection Command was quietly released under Freedom of Information laws.
Marked “Secret”, it was a draft study of the implications for Australia of adopting a policy of turning back asylum-seeker boats: an issue that has become a flashpoint of difference between the Gillard government and Tony Abbott’s Coalition.”
also,
“Abbott accepts that navy personnel would bear the brunt of his new policy and that there would be brutal aspects to it. But he maintains that is a price the nation must pay to help stop the flow of asylum-seekers to Australia.
“This is a test of wills and Australia has lost,” says Abbott. “What counts is what the Australian government does, not what it says. It is time for Australia to adopt turning the boats as its core policy.”
and,
“We will make our policy decision and we will bear responsibility for their consequences,” Morrison has said. “We won’t be putting any naval and immigration officials at the end of the stick.”
“The Coalition will restore the policy of turning boats around where it is safe to do so, in the same manner that it was effectively and successfully implemented by the Howard government. This will be done consistent with our domestic and international obligations and the chain of command, as it was when we implemented this policy when last in government.”
Morrison, who claimed the policy was “effectively and successfully implemented”, conveniently overlooked the following:
“On eight occasions between 2001 and 2003 the navy attempted to return asylum-seeker boats to Indonesian waters.
Five of these boats were eventually returned, while three sank during the interception process, forcing the navy to rescue the passengers and put them into Australian detention facilities.”
“Navy chief Ray Griggs makes clear the law of the sea would override edicts from Canberra. “The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea is the convention that would be the prime driver in the decision-making of the commanding officer,” he says.
“A (commander) at sea is bound to act broadly under the laws of war and the laws of humanity,” former navy chief David Shackleton tolds Inquirer. Former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie says: “Policy can’t override international law and cannot tell a commanding officer what decisions he must make at sea at the time.” – end of quotes from Cameron Stewart’s article.
So what do we have? We have two heartless politicians that go by the name of Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison – our Scylla and Charybdis.
Only one thing is certain: when their time comes both Abbott and Morrison will not die of heart attacks.
Lydia and podargus reflect what I have been pondering re The Greens whose policies I wholly support.
At the next election I shall be switching back to Labor as I perceive The Greens are playing petty politics that risk winning small battles that lose the big fight. It was similar that signalled the end of The Democrats who with a fine record, destroyed themselves with Meg Lees’ help.
Although maralynS is quite correct one must look at the Big Picture. Howard set this country back decades from Hawke/Keating’s mainly inspired leadership. Abbott will be worse. he’s a thug compared to Howard’s ‘finesse’ in manipulation but will be Howard on steroids given the chance.
i’ll sound off saying this, but i hope abbott does get in. i hope he does get in and impose all the worst we might think of him on the Australian people. it’s the only way people will learn from this. hopefully they’ll learn that giving unfettered power to an right wing reactionary will very questionable morals will result in bad things happening.
For a long time I have thought Malcolm Turnbull seemed to be a very credible alternative to Abbott, however on Q&A last night he showed his true colours. First he called for an early election as the current government was dysfunctional and perpetuating the Abbott spin. This is despite the fact that the Gillard government has passed over 300 pieces of legislation, far more than Howard in his whole term. As a fellow panellist pointed out many European counties have minority governments and it is nothing new. Then his appalling lack of guts when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage – no real courage of his convictions. He just wants to stay in the “inner circle” of the shadow cabinet for his own purposes. And of course, he is back to wearing the suit and tie. Mind you anybody would be better than Abbott, well almost.
In Perth yesterday, campaigning against the carbon tax, Mr Abbott told local radio that asylum seekers coming by boat were un-Christian after a listener rang in and accused him of having an un-Christian attitude.
“I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door,” Mr Abbott said. ”I’m all in favour of Australia having a healthy and compassionate refugee and humanitarian intake program – but I think that the people we accept should be coming the right way, not the wrong way.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/indonesia-will-bend-to-boats-policy-says-abbott-20120709-21rrd.html
What can I say to this man who claims to live his life according to the Christian faith except quote his bible.
Matthew 23.27:
“How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look fine on the outside but are full of bones and decaying corpses on the inside. In the same way, on the outside you appear good to everybody, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and sins”
Lydia, what is there to compromise? We already treat asylum seekers so badly how can we compromise more.
The Greens are right to stick to the law, if we don’t stick to the law for one group we can break it for anyone we like, even you.
The Greens have long argued that we need to increase the voluntary intake from Indonesia instead of jailing and torturing people there for decades at out expense.
Apart from that, what if all nations compromised away the rights of a small group of people who faced death.
What if Yemen pushed back the 104,000 refugees.
And why do we get to compromise the rights of and punish one group of people because we killed another group of people.
Get back to me when you think of something sensible instead of ridiculous because the right to asylum is absolute bed rock law that can never be compromised.
The Greens did not refuse to negotiate and they will not vote for breaking the law.
Are Lydia and others so stupid they think we can compromise away hundreds of years of common law.
You have no idea what the debate was about – I have posted it in other places but just heard from Melissa Parke who said that she only voted for it to avoid expulsion.
There is nothing to negotiate but the Greens proposed an immediate intake of 1,000 of those waiting in Indonesia and 4,000 from Malaysia who want to come here. They suggested as others have for over a decade that we speed up the work in Indonesia and give people hope.
They want to stop the refugee prisons, increase funding to the UNHCR and all this is rejected by both major parties.
So stop frigging well blaming the Greens because the ALP are lying cowards and the media don’t report the facts.
And Chris Barrie is correct to say that policy cannot over ride the law, the high court strangely enough keep finding the same thing.
We already do so-called offshore assessments in 36 overseas embassies of people referred by the UNHCR but we refuse to let people apply directly at any of our embassies – we do this so we can help as few people as possible.
We have this delusion in this nation that if we are brutal enough people will not want to come here – well that is sure working for foreign students who don’t want to come anymore but I don’t think that is the intended consequence.
And Lydia, go and read SIEVX and you will finally understand that we are the ones letting refugees drown – to protect rotten AFP spies and to try and force Indonesia to save them when we know they can’t.
What if you sent out an SOS on the seas and the government responsible waited 41 hours to help?
And you or your family drowned.
They took 1.5 hours to respond to the New Guinea ship wreck.
What if your vessel was going to crash and the navy decided not to help because they were guarding a boat that was going to sink before they could sink it.
And then blamed someone else.
Our government has so bastardised the law that we are not much above the taliban.
MarilynS When little Johnny Howard was taking us down the slippery slope away from International law, forgive me but I don’t recall the present cacophony of outrage coming from the Greens.
I never even knew until recently that it was Howard’s policy to instruct the Navy not only to turn the boats back to Indonesia but to drain the petrol tanks and abandon them to their fate. Completely daft, why antagonize some 313 Indonesian Muslims by abandoning their brothers and sisters at sea, particularly when we need to placate them to buy our livestock etc,
If Howard was committing these dastardly crimes against Int.Law surely a compromise could have been reached whereby the numbers of infringements would be gradually reduced with the goal of eventual eradicating them alltogether.
However a compromise is the least one would have expected from the Greens as part of the Government, having sailed in on Labor’s coat tails. Not the rigid ‘all or nothing’ stance they have adopted. You must agree that it smacks of ingratitude when they are the ones lobbing Molotov cocktails into every weakness of the Gillard Government.
Don’t misunderstand me the refugee situation is diabolical and it will go now where if we all aren’t prepared to pitch in. It might be poetic justice that our misadventure into Afghanistan should come back and haunt us but the PM despite her minority Govt seem to be trying to find a solution, by appointing an independent working panel. However the Liberals and the Greens it appears are intent on scuttling it before it even begins.
Thje Greens only had Bob Brown Lydia and he was making plenty of noise as were the democrats who had the balance of power.
There is no frigging solution Lydia because there is no problem, aT least not for lazy selfish us.
Say we send 800 refugees to Malaysia to die, will that mean there are any less refugees anywhere else in the world or just 800 refugees dead in Malaysia. 1300 people died in their refugee prisons in 5 years, how is that safer? How do we get to decide that a few random people have no rights anywhere in the world just in the name of some bizarre solution.
Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini and the Taliban have solutions, shall we try them?
As for the independent working panel, what is the point? The UNHCR and 147 other nations already have a working panel and we are on it.
How about this Lydia, how about you learn what the law and obligations are and then get back to me because clearly you do not know what you are talking about.
And Lydia, we cannot arbitrarily compromise on the fucking law.
As you are aware the plight of asylum seekers in Australia is an issue that is very important to the Greens. In parliament 2 weeks ago we proposed immediate and practical actions that will save lives, reduce the number of boat departures and establish a long-term solution. We propose to:
· provide safe pathways for refugees to discourage people taking life threatening journeys by establishing enhanced regional assessment, not offshore processing;
· increase Australia’s humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 20,000, including additional places to be immediately allocated to targeted resettlement of 1,000 people from Indonesia and 4,000 people from Malaysia;
· immediately increase funding to United Nations High Commission for Refugees by $10 million to boost the capacity of Refugee Status Determination assessments in Malaysia and Indonesia;
· establish a multi-party committee, charged with developing a framework for a long-term regional solution which is underpinned by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the related 1967 Protocol;
· enter urgent discussions between Australia and Indonesia to address the critical need for cooperation and effectiveness of intelligence sharing and resourcing between Australia and Indonesia in order to save lives at sea;
· codify Australia’s Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974 obligations across all relevant government agencies and increase Australia’s rescue capacity in Australia’s northern waters
So much for no compromise tossers. WE cannot compromise on the law.
MarilynS YOU can’t fcuking preach to the converted. I know what the law and obligations are. I am also fully cognizant that Australia despite numerous warnings have been ignoring and breaking Int. Law for decades.
From the Aboriginal ‘Terra Nobilis’ to the White Australia Policy to little Johnny Howard and the ‘coalition of the dummies’ illegal invasion into Iraq without UN approval etc.
Israel illegally occupies and corrals some 4mil Palestinians in a ghetto called Gaza and with Australia complicity and the US veto,daily subjects the Palestinians to indefinite detention and trail by missiles and bombs them daily with cluster bombs, wp and du. and shoot unarmed women and children with high powered rifles. Unarmed Palestinians civilians whose only crime is that Israel covet Palestinian land, so don’t you go telling me about Int Law and violations.
Everyone who has ever owned horses or cattle knows it not the easiest thing to turn them around in mid-gallop on a path they have been treading for years. Australia has been treading such a path in ignoring and violating Int Laws for decades.
My argument is the Greens should have adopted a less rigid ‘all or nothing stance’ knowing Gillard was doing her utmost, under these pressing circumstances, and eventually achieve the same ultimate goal instead of, as it turns out, achieving nothing except giving the Government, they are part and parcel of, another death blow.
No one is a blind as he who refuses to see.
But they have to press an all or nothing up hold the law stance while demanding an increase in the voluntary program.
For pete’s sake, what are you on about?
The government wanted to send refugees to Iraq and Iran you stupid woman.
The law is for everyone and just because we break it sometimes doesn’t give us the right to break it again.
the law before that ridiculous lying debate was this.
ri
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20mas
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “uinlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950′s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.
The next day it was this.
ri
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20mas
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “uinlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950′s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.
So what are you even on about – we rigidly adhere to no death penalty, perhaps we should compromise on that too, just to appease those who like it.
How about prison without charge for you or me because we disagree with something.
How about we just throw away the law, the constitution and anything else we fell like because we can.
I don’t care if the ALP have been dealt a blow over this, they deserve to be thoroughly kicked for trying it on in breach of the high court ruling.
d4d0ff7, Abbott is a numb nut cut from the same cloth as Jackson and Lawler and the Liberal cabal. Their sense of entitlement is what will bring them down.
The sheeples have short memory and short attention span thats what the Abbot and Jackson clique relies upon for if the sheeples had a neuron more than a gibbon, Abbot and his clique would never ever be elected to public office, for they have no empathy for the working class.
Abbot unlike Jackson attended Oxford College and Jackson after a short stint at Harvard where most Wall Street branksters spent years honing their craft, bankers who triggered the worst financial crisis of the 20th Century. So thank God she was only there for weeks not years or HSU would not be left standing after she had gutted it.
I given up reading Marilyn S tirades, me old Dad said never engage a zealot it only feeds their delusion!
MariyinS, your passion is admirable, but sadly you are flogging a dead horse.
As I and Oscar Jones have both pointed out, the ideological stand of the Greens will relegate them to the political irrelevance achieved by the Democrats at the hands of Meg Lees. Siding with the party that is hell bent on supporting the top end of town over the needs of the environment, riding roughshod over the rights of refugees and diametrically opposed to anything connected with climate change, was particularly bad political judgement.
It may not be ideal but sensible compromise is the foundation of democratic government, and 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Remember, evil flourishes when good men do nothing!
MarilynS While I might agree with all you have to say on the topic of refugee//boat people, I would like to remind you that not too long ago Aboriginals were being rounded up incarcerated bashed and a disproportionate amount of them died while in custody.
However, the fact still remains that the Green in joining forces with the miscreant liberals in general and Abbot in particular did a disservice to the Labor Government that had chaperoned them into Government
Under no circumstances, that one who claims such empathy for the refugees and such passion for the law should have found a sliver of commonality/compatibility with the Liberals. That you did even for a minute is confronting, to say the least.
The Greens are disaffected lefties (like me) who abhor Labor’s shift to the right.
Kevin Rudd was the best hope as a decent man with (hidden) true Labor values destroyed by the media.
I’d love to think 3 years of an Abbott horror would teach the suburban dimwits a lesson but we got Howard who got us off killing Iraqis etc. plus the hideous scenario now and the false flag of ‘illegal boat people’. Another Howard triumph going on and on now for 15 years and 6 after the creep has gone.
If The Greens in any way assist in dismantling a Labor government they will be finished and marilynS who is correct can rant and rave as I will on forums and get no fucking where.
We haven’t got anywhere in the last fucking 12 years because our leaders have all been scared racists.
And the law of this country is not my fucking ideology, I did not write it>
Why do the dumb think that the law is something that can be dropped when we feel like it.
What if everyone does it? We have global anarchy.
The refugee convention was conceived partly by Australia, the declaration of human rights by Australia, all human rights instruments have had major input from Australia.
What is the point if we just throw it in the bin when it suits.
During the MV Cormo affair the group of us wrote a poem relating it back to the kids overboard.
thought it was time to share it.
Those sheep
by Kate Wildermuth, Marilyn Shepherd and Anon. from Armidale
September – October 2003
Let’s move forward to the next election campaign. Is it possible that now the flow of asylum seekers has dried up the Howard Government will turn it’s attention to sheep?
We can picture the campaign:
1. The sheep will be accused of throwing their lambs overboard. The government will say that they have photos and a video as absolute proof it happened. We’ll be told that these are not the type of sheep to be allowed into Australia. There will be statements such as ‘they will never set hoof on our shores’.
2. They’ll be accused of being queue jumping sheep. What about all the other sheep in the sheep camps waiting to be allowed in?
3. They’ll claim that if we take these sheep we’ll be swamped by thousands of others wanting to come here. Merino Vanstone will present statistics to show that Australia is the most generous of all towards refugee sheep.
4. The sheep will be attacked for not having passports and proper documentation or having thrown it overboard.
5. We’ll be told that it is cruel to allow the sheep out of detention on the ship so they can do what normal lambs do. Merino Vanstone will say the detention of the lambs is for their own good so they won’t be disappointed when she locks them up again.
6. We’ll be told that locking them up is necessary because it will deter others.
7. They’ll say that these sheep paid sheeple smugglers. They must be wealthy sheep. Genuine sheep don’t pay smugglers.
8. We’ll hear how a plane flew directly over the boat containing the sheep but saw nothing.
9. The sheep will be accused of being potential terrorists with links to Osama Baa Laden.
10. They’ll say these sheep could not possibly love their lambs. Why on earth would they not stay on a strife torn farm if they loved them?
11. We’ll be told they could be hiding weapons under their wool.
12. The media will be told not to photograph them or it will sheepify them.
13. We’ll be told that they only had lambs to blackmail the government.
14. NZ will take them – they can’t get enough of ‘em.
15. They’ll be accused of trying to take advantage of our limited grass and then bleating to the elite.
16. The government will ram it home that they are so baaaaad that most of them will get the chop anyway and not to listen to the woolly thinking of the sheepitarians.
17. Most Australians will follow like …yep, you guessed it.
18. And absolutely no-one will tell the PM.
Back to sievx.com
MarilynS One doesn’t need to be a Nuclear Physicist to appreciate that the Liberals every existence is to take a wrecking ball to all workers rights that our forefathers fought over many years to achieve. That successive Labor movement has given working people a stronger voice is the Elephant in the Room and a hindrance to Liberal Government greed and profit at any cost.
We also witnessed the Howad government’s introduction of legislation, policies and practices that was to eradicate the workers collective bargaining rights and replace it with the dreaded Work Choices. We see the length the Liberals will go to undermine the Labor Government, Gordon Gretch, Jackson, Lawler et al.
As d4d0ff7 reminded us, Queensland recently elected Liberal Newman and barely 100days in office, Newman has already done a U turn on his promises and has thrown his lot in with the Mega Wealthy. No one castigates Newman daily about lying to the electorate and anyone who believes that Newman will put the welfare of the working class before those of his wealthy handlers or that the desires of the Mega Rich is aligned with those of the working class is living in la la land.
That the Greens thought they had things in common with the Liberals is blot on their claim to be empathetic and passionate about Laws and Legality.
Geez Marilyn, do you ever let up? You don’t have to dominate every single comment section. Also if you are giving statistics you really should reference them to a credible (not dodgy) source, because some of your facts & figures are a bit suss. Re poem: don’t give up your day job – oh that’s right…
The poem was a bit of fun, jees, where is your sense of humour.
If Julia Gillard was so keen on compromise, why did she not try to compromise with the Greens instead of the Liberals?
@Sympneology Isn’t compromising for her to call for an ‘independent’ inquiry. Or is what you call a compromise the Greens unyielding stance or Abbot’s who wouldn’t even grace the conference with his presence.
Lydia, stop claiming the Greens were unyielding without offering any evidence of such a stupid claim.
We don’t get to compromise on the law for one small group of innocent people.
Eveyone has the right to seek asylum, which part do you want to compromise on?
Except if they come by sea to this island alone in the world?
The Greens want to increase the humanitarian intake – it is the lib/labs who won’t..
We only accept 0.0001% of the world’s refugees here anyway so what on earth is there to actually compromise over?
Just assess their fucking claims without jailing them, the rest of the world manages to do it.
MariynS You ask for evidence that the Greens are unyielding then in your next sentence you provide the evidence yourself with your declaration that “We don’t get to compromise on the law…”.
May I remind you that the Law is considered as a living breathing organism, which changes and adapts to the needs and views of society.
labor is upset the greens won’t budge, but, has labor even considered the greens proposal of increasing intake?
julian burnside set it out really well in the age a week or so ago and then again on the abc’s drum. yes the greens are being stubborn, but no more than labor. but i notice the greens aren’t having a childish hissy fit over it, perhaps they’re used to being ignored until their vote is needed, then ignored again.
Lydia, international law is not ours to play with, it has many partners which is why it is international.
We can accept as many refugees from overseas as we choose to, we simply choose not to and that is down to the laborals, the Greens and indies think we should accept more refugees from overseas.
So it is the two stupid major parties who refuse to accept what can and cannot be done.
I am not allowed to shoot you or kill you or harm you Lydia, would you like me to compromise that law for you?
Because we cannot shove away a single person who comes here without due process, we cannot even deport murderers if their lives are at risk in their home countries and so they live among us quite freely.
Some laws really are not negotiable Lydia so grow the hell up.
And Lydia if the views of this country suddenly decided they would like to lynch blacks in the town squares should we change that law to suit them?
Some laws cannot be changed.
MarilynS My God you got it! my point exactly. Even with your “Some laws cannot be changed.” I was merely pointing out that not even laws are as rigid as you claim.
You/the Greens are the ones claiming the ‘immovability’ and ‘correctness’ of the Law gives purity and grounds to betray the Gillard Govt. who gave the Greens a leg up into the Government. I think it’s more the Scorpion and the Crocodile scenario’ that got the better of you.
Why give the Liberals even an inch of ground, knowing their grand design is the eradication of the middle class, the progress of the working class and turn us all into working poor.
People are so caught up with mortgages, debts, bank fees etc many don’t even have time to scratch their butts. Why not appreciate that Gillard (as a woman) was between a rock and a hard place with Abbott baying for blood and COMPROMISE?
The Greens giving Abbot, [note he is calling again for a return to 'Work Choice'], a green light will be interpreted as acceptance of all he stand for.
Ah, Alas for too long have we tarried on this.
Sinking Abbott | Independent Australia http://t.co/dbn9yzeM #auspol #CarbonTax
Hi MarilynS,
Just wondering what makes you and the Greens think that say if we said we would take 100,000 over and above what our intake already,is the families or individuals that missed out wouldn’t still take that voyage?
Exactly Tara. It is a joke to take the line of reasoning that increasing our intake will stop people trying to get here. Most don’t want to come because it is ‘safe’, they want to come because Australia represents one of the best prospects for material opportunity. If we are to accept that people are not safe in any of the countries that they pass through on their way here, then hell, why are they not arguing to open up the doors to the rest of the populations in these countries(Indon., Malay. etc), instead of just the transients?
I can’t reconcile the Greens wish to preserve the natural environment, and how they don’t do or say anything on the topic of world overpopulation and unchecked immigration. They just seem to encourage it(provided it is not those evil western whities and jews doing the breeding). Australia is the worst possible place to try to raise a large population(or try to be a world ‘food basket’). Our dirt is amongst the oldest, and most nutrient poor on the planet, with no volcanic activity to replenish it.
I’m also completely sick of hearing how rich we are and that therefore we should be giving more. Our GDP per capita is certainly high, but our costs of living are also gargantuan compared to developing nations. The rest of the world sees our money, senses our naivety, and they all line up to screw us over in business(with our Government all too willing to drop our collective trousers on FTAs), as we are so heavily reliant on imports. From a national point of view, we are strong, but not from an individual perspective. A financial crisis rippling through Australia will not take down our banks or Government. Our liability is personal debt, IE: households will fail. Our banks are strong because our people are stupid and have been competing with each other to see who can take out the biggest mortgage for far too long now. For some incredibly stupid reason single home owners have been equating the rise in value of their homes with a rise in personal wealth. Seemingly forgetting how when you sell your house, you have to buy another in the same overpriced market. The speculators are starting to realise that ponzi schemes(like Aust. R.E.I.) need continual injections of new ‘dumb’ money. It’s not that we have run out of dumb people, we have run out of dumb people who can get approval for a bank loan, and the smart ones are keeping their powder dry.
What does any of this have to do with asylum seekers? If people are feeling monetary pressures, they are less likely to act charitably, rather they will feel that charity should be directed towards them. These feelings, right or wrong, are more of a driver of anti-immigration sentiment than latent racial prejudices.
And in the end, it doesn’t matter how much MarylinS huffs and puffs, she is well aware that she does not represent the views of the majority of Australians. And that is who ultimately determine what the laws of this land are(through electing legislators), and what international agreements we decide to support.
Well of course they would still make the journey, that is why the supposed debate is such a waste of everyone’s time.
Australia is only on about stopping those who make the journey from getting here, we don’t care if they die trying and we don’t care if they die at home.
The law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum and I have never advocated a higher intake from overseas as being some sort of cure all but it certainly would stop us being allowed to jail and torture refugees in INdonesia for 20 years.
We need to be like all other nations in the world and let asylum seekers get into our embassies instead of setting up this ridiculous steel ring around the country.
Lydia, the Greens did not give fucking Abbott an inch.
Jesus christ grow up.
MarilynS The Greens were making noises about selflessness, compassion, care for others, the environment, human rights and laws etc etc Things many of us all wanted to believe still existed.
However when given half the chance you turned your collective backs on Gillard who was good to you and instead took sides with the very cabal ie Abbott/the Liberals who for years have shown they give not a tinkers damn for anyone except the Mega Rich, who continually grease their palms, to the detriment of the workers.
The Greens will from now til forever be doing the “Out damn Spot” for they have to live with the fact that the Gillard government could not rely on them when the chips were down
I agree with Barry Everingham about Abbott’s chilling performance on Insiders and I have no doubt most of those I know would also. But it seems to me the view from inner Melbourne (where I live) is not likely to influence the outcome of the 2013 election irrespective of whether Adam Bandt gets another term or preference shennanigans between the two major political groupings snatch the seat back for the ALP. I have a couple of questions. How many of those who will determine the election are likely to watch Insiders? Not too many I’ll wager. Of those who might have seen the interview how many will see a cold, calculating liar (as we did) and how many will see a strong leader who can be understood by attention challenged political illiterates. Plenty of the latter I’ll wager. My point is that I don’t think the interview will have damaged his prospects of election in the slightest and to the extent that Abbott thinks they discomfited the sort of people who read IA and watch the ABC he will be delighted.