Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > Tilted Fun Zone


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-08-2004, 10:22 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Does this make you embarrassed to be Austalian? It should...

Quote:
Six-year detainee pleads for freedom
September 9, 2004 - 3:49PM

An asylum seeker about to enter his seventh year in detention is pleading for his freedom, saying he will work hard "with a grateful heart" if he is released.

Peter Qasim, a Kashmiri national, has completed his sixth year of detention in Australia and said he could not be imprisoned forever without hope.

"Please give me freedom," he urged, as he told of fleeing torture and violence as a teenager in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

Mr Qasim has been in immigration detention since entering Australia in 1998.

The now 30-year-old has been held at detention centres in Perth, Curtin, Woomera, and now Baxter in South Australia, at an estimated cost of about $400,000.

Refugee groups are calling for government action to end his plight.

Mr Qasim has been refused visas in Australia but cannot be returned home to India because the government does not recognise his nationality, in effect making him a stateless person.

In a statement released on his behalf by Justice for Refugees SA, Mr Qasim pleaded for compassion.

"Please give me freedom. I would work hard with a grateful heart but I cannot be imprisoned forever without hope," he said.

"I came here hoping for refuge from the fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir in which my father was killed and I was tortured as a 17-year-old.

"The Indian government will not recognise my nationality, leaving me stateless.

"I have asked 80 countries to take me, but they have all refused."

Mr Qasim's cause was taken up by the Australian Democrats, who urged Prime Minister John Howard to show compassion.

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, the Democrats' foreign affairs spokeswoman, said it was heartless for the government to detain anyone for such a long period of time.

"Following last month's High Court ruling on indefinite detention, Mr Qasim now faces the possibility of being detained in Australia for the rest of his natural life unless the government intervenes in his case," she said.

"I urge the government to exercise one of the many forms of ministerial intervention available, including granting Mr Qasim a refugee visa or, at a bare minimum, a bridging visa."

The High Court ruled last month that it was lawful for stateless asylum seekers to be detained indefinitely.

But Senator Stott Despoja said she had written to Mr Howard urging action.

"It's heartless and inhumane for the government to detain people for such long periods of time," she said.

"Mr Qasim has not committed any crime, yet has now been detained for longer than some convicted criminals."

Senator Despoja's comments came as mayors and councillors from six Melbourne councils called on the government to reduce the amount of time asylum seekers were detained.

Nine Melbourne local government officials, including Darebin Mayor Rae Perry and Port Phillip Mayor Dick Gross have toured the Baxter detention centre.

"We believe the reality of long-term detention of asylum seekers is a disgrace," the officials said in a joint statement.

Other Melbourne councils involved in the visit were Yarra, Whittlesea, Hume and Moreland.

Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...530750824.html
I just don't know where to start. Let's just say it's a bloody disgrace.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 10:31 PM   #2 (permalink)
Upright
 
You have to feel sorry for the poor guy, he has no home, even homeless people can go where-ever the hell they want. He'll probably do himself in if he isn't released soon, I would!
Potatocake is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 01:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
If you've read this, PM me and say so
 
Location: Sitting on my ass, and you?
does he have the option to get deported back to where he came from? Maybe that'll learn him to get in the legal way
slimshaydee is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 02:20 AM   #4 (permalink)
Fluxing wildly...
 
MrFlux's Avatar
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimshaydee
does he have the option to get deported back to where he came from? Maybe that'll learn him to get in the legal way
No, read the article closer

Quote:
The Indian government will not recognise my nationality, leaving me stateless.
__________________
flux (n.)
Medicine. The discharge of large quantities of fluid material from the body, especially the discharge of watery feces from the intestines.
MrFlux is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 02:29 AM   #5 (permalink)
If you've read this, PM me and say so
 
Location: Sitting on my ass, and you?
reading the article is so cliche. I just make random comments and hope for the best.
slimshaydee is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 03:10 AM   #6 (permalink)
Ella Bo Bella
 
Ella's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
slim....your approach to posting rocks serious ass, babe.

I can empathise with the bloke's plight, but can see a dangerous precedent being set here if Australia decides to take him.
__________________
"Afterwards, the universe will explode for your pleasure."
Ella is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 04:05 AM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
Arc101's Avatar
 
Location: Nottingham, England
Quote:
The High Court ruled last month that it was lawful for stateless asylum seekers to be detained indefinitely
That sucks - if the person is not a criminal, poses not threat to society then how can you justify imprisoning someone indefinitely ?
Arc101 is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 01:34 PM   #8 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: 'Straylia
What precedent?

Ella, did you know that after world war 2 we took in over 200,000 displaced people (refugees)
Mr_Wall is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 06:54 PM   #9 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimshaydee
does he have the option to get deported back to where he came from? Maybe that'll learn him to get in the legal way
If they grant him asylum he did enter the legal way. Except he had to endure a period of 7 years of detention for a 'crime' he did not commit, and even if he did commit is still relatively insignificant compared to say the people who get shorter sentences for actual violent crimes...

Your lack of compassion is astounding.
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 11:38 PM   #10 (permalink)
Mine is an evil laugh
 
spindles's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Yep, I think it is a disgrace. Having said that, I also think it is disgraceful that India or Pakistan would not take them back.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?
spindles is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 12:44 AM   #11 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Tokyo Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostya
If they grant him asylum he did enter the legal way. Except he had to endure a period of 7 years of detention for a 'crime' he did not commit, and even if he did commit is still relatively insignificant compared to say the people who get shorter sentences for actual violent crimes...

Your lack of compassion is astounding.
Entering a foreign country without a visa (say, on a boat) isn't illegal?

Call me crazy, but in the old days people would just apply for a visa (or refugee status), and get this: they would even use this passport-thingy to enter and depart foreign countries.

Yeah, wild isn't it?
__________________
Champaigne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends.
ultra_agent9 is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 04:22 AM   #12 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultra_agent9
Entering a foreign country without a visa (say, on a boat) isn't illegal?
No, not if you're a refugee. You get granted asylum and are legally under the protection of the Australian government.
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 11:32 PM   #13 (permalink)
Loose Cunt
 
Meridae'n's Avatar
 
Location: North Bondi RSL
Will some people ever get it? These people aren't refugees because they're NOT fleeing from war. Sure, he says "I came here hoping for refuge from the fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir" but surely you're not naive enough to believe that old chestnut. If he was from that region then he would certainly have proven it by now and have refugee status. I know that sounds heartless, but the goddess said it better than I can:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella
I can empathise with the bloke's plight, but can see a dangerous precedent being set here if Australia decides to take him.
What happens if we grant him citizenship? Floodgates open my friends. It's a terrible situation, I can only wish he had more idea about the consequences of his actions before he handed over the money and jumped on the boat.

And, no, this doesn't make me embarrassed to be Australian, it makes me angry that their are ruthless criminals in neighbouring countries that take advantage of these poor people.
__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?
Meridae'n is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 06:23 AM   #14 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
Will some people ever get it? These people aren't refugees because they're NOT fleeing from war. Sure, he says "I came here hoping for refuge from the fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir" but surely you're not naive enough to believe that old chestnut. If he was from that region then he would certainly have proven it by now and have refugee status. I know that sounds heartless, but the goddess said it better than I can:
Ok then. Let's just assume that everything you said is the absolute truth. Why is it, that you have no pity for a man who has commited a fairly minor, victimless crime by immigrating illegally, who has been punished with 7 years of his life being taken from him. Consider people who have assualted and stolen who have received shorter sentences, is it not an injustice that this man has lost more years of his life than a person who brutally attacks another human being, potentially causing them permanent damage. Who has he attacked? Where is the actual harm he, himself has caused? Why is it them that you have absolutely no sympathy for him, his plight, even if what you say is true, and I don't believe you can prove that it is, is far and away too harsh for his misconduct.
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 07:30 AM   #15 (permalink)
Without Wings
 
frozenstellar's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
its a bastard of a situation, i agree with both Meri & Kostya. Let him in, and watch them all flock in. Keep him in detention indefinately - he's doing more time than the guy who killed my friend 2 years ago in a drunken hit & run.

how can that possibly be justified?
frozenstellar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 08:00 AM   #16 (permalink)
Loose Cunt
 
Meridae'n's Avatar
 
Location: North Bondi RSL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostya
Ok then. Let's just assume that everything you said is the absolute truth. Why is it, that you have no pity for a man who has commited a fairly minor, victimless crime by immigrating illegally, who has been punished with 7 years of his life being taken from him. Consider people who have assualted and stolen who have received shorter sentences, is it not an injustice that this man has lost more years of his life than a person who brutally attacks another human being, potentially causing them permanent damage. Who has he attacked? Where is the actual harm he, himself has caused? Why is it them that you have absolutely no sympathy for him, his plight, even if what you say is true, and I don't believe you can prove that it is, is far and away too harsh for his misconduct.
I guess this highlights the main difference in our opinions... i do not think that immigrating illegally is a "fairly minor, victimless crime". I, and most of the developed world, see this as a very serious crime that can lead to the immigration of very dangerous people. I guess this makes me paranoid, but I want to know the background of every person that moves to my country. If these people can't get refugee status, there's a reason. If they don't want to use the correct avenues to citizenship, there's a reason.

It certainly is an injustice that this man has lost 7 years of his life, in fact, it's a tragedy, unfortunately not an isolated tragedy. Believe me I have sympathy for this man.

You seem like an intelligent person Kostya, so I ask you this:

a) What do we do with the people that are being held in detention?

b) Do you believe that rate of boat people will increase if we assimilate the detainees into our society? What do we do with future boat people?
__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?
Meridae'n is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 07:06 PM   #17 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
I guess this highlights the main difference in our opinions... i do not think that immigrating illegally is a "fairly minor, victimless crime". I, and most of the developed world, see this as a very serious crime that can lead to the immigration of very dangerous people. I guess this makes me paranoid, but I want to know the background of every person that moves to my country. If these people can't get refugee status, there's a reason. If they don't want to use the correct avenues to citizenship, there's a reason.

It certainly is an injustice that this man has lost 7 years of his life, in fact, it's a tragedy, unfortunately not an isolated tragedy. Believe me I have sympathy for this man.

You seem like an intelligent person Kostya, so I ask you this:

a) What do we do with the people that are being held in detention?

b) Do you believe that rate of boat people will increase if we assimilate the detainees into our society? What do we do with future boat people?
So you're saying it's a SERIOUS crime because it could lead to dangerous people immigrating...

Interesting. So, you believe it's a serious crime for a decent human being to immigrate illegally, based solely on the fact that it could lead to a dangerous person immigrating. You are holding the decent person responsible and culpable for the possibility of someone dangerous possibly immigrating into our country and doing something actually criminal. Forgive me if I find this somewhat unjust. Frankly, I don't think that it's a serious crime whatsoever on the part of this man, nor do I think that even a psychotic nutcase who immigrated illegally performed a serious crime by doing so. He may commit a serious crime later, but his illegal immigration is hardly a serious infraction of Australian law. I mean if Martin Bryant had jay walkd right before he started shooting, people wouldn't call it a serious crime, despite the identity of the perpetrator.

In answer to your question:

1. Upgrade their facilities and keep them in humane conditions instead of their current accomodation. Moreover, commit more human resources to quickly resolving issues of identity and criminality so as to minimise as much as possible the period of detention. Alternatively assimilate them into society the way they do in Britain.

2. Possibly, assimilate them too.
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 08:19 PM   #18 (permalink)
Loose Cunt
 
Meridae'n's Avatar
 
Location: North Bondi RSL
Possibly? Yes or no? Do you believe the rate of boat people will increase or not?

I beleive your argument that the detention centres are not up to the quality they should be is a direct contradiction of your previous stance... so it's alright if we hold them as long as the jail is more like a hotel? It would not matter if we made Woomera into a 5 star palace... they are still in detention, and it would not be long until your left-wing kinfolk would be protesting that it isn't enough.

How do you know that this man is innocent of any previous crime? Because he said so? Fair enough then, be it far from me to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials. If we stop one murderer from gaining entry by holding 1000 people in these centres, then I believe the 'system' has worked.

I don't know what you were trying to say with the Martyn Bryant analogy, so I can't really comment on that.

Here's another major difference in our opinions: You say we cannot use the risk of a future crime being committed by any of these people as a reason to stop them entering. I say that is definately a reason for denying entry. If there is any reasonable chance of a crime being committed on the persons or property of an Australian citizen by one of these people then we cannot grant them entry. The people here are citizens by birthright or have worked hard to gain citizenship legally and we cannot compromise their trust and safety by letting people in who we have little information about.

How do Britain deal with their illegal immigrants?
__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?
Meridae'n is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 03:00 PM   #19 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: 'Straylia
Anyone here do it?

Would anyone seriously go to same depths this guy has to get into a country? I reckon if he has the balls to jump in a bathtub with the sinkhole plugged up and a newspaper for a paddle with no directions to get here or food and water, actually does survive let him in he's a proven "battler".
Mr_Wall is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 05:26 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Well, some of you have simply reinforced my opinion that a great deal of middle Australia is NOT the caring, multi-cultural, happy go lucky, welcoming and "fair go" country that it likes to think it is.

This country has changed, considerably, for the worse in the four years I've been here.

Racism, misinformation, lack of compassion... all of it thanks to Howard in my opinion.

Who says One Nation was an aberration?


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 06:52 AM   #21 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
Possibly? Yes or no? Do you believe the rate of boat people will increase or not?
Why ask for an absolute answer. Personally I believe the amount of asylum seekers is not determined solely by this variant. I cannot give you a Yes or No answer, I said maybe because I am unsure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
I beleive your argument that the detention centres are not up to the quality they should be is a direct contradiction of your previous stance... so it's alright if we hold them as long as the jail is more like a hotel? It would not matter if we made Woomera into a 5 star palace... they are still in detention, and it would not be long until your left-wing kinfolk would be protesting that it isn't enough.
I do not believe it is just to hold them in 5 Star hotels, but I believe it is better, and if people are going to persist in demanding that they are going to be held in detention, then at least they deserve to be housed in proper facilities. This is not what I think is just, but I much prefer it to the current situation. If my 'left wing kinfolk' were to protest that situation they can feel free, that is not my concern, nor do I endorse their approach, dogma or methodology, so as I have already warned you, refrain from patronising me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
How do you know that this man is innocent of any previous crime? Because
he said so?
How do you know he is guilty of one? But, for the sake of argument, let's presume this character actuall murdered 50 babies. Now we don't know that, we can't prove it, I'd say that that constitutes reasonable doubt. Not that that matters anyhow, since he hasn't been tried, found guilty by a jury and sentenced formally to jail time. He is being held NOT for murdering 50 babies, but for the fact that he might have committed a crime in the past and therefore might not be a legitimate asylum seeker and therefore might be an illegal immigrant. Now I agree that this baby killer is a despicable human being, and that he ought to be brought to justice, but his act of immigrating illegally is hardly justification for his incarceration. Essentially am I to believe that you are advocating wholesale the policy of incarcerating a person on suspicion that they might have committed a crime? How is this just?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
Fair enough then, be it far from me to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials. If we stop one murderer from gaining entry by holding 1000 people in these centres, then I believe the 'system' has worked.
It certainly is far from you to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials, that is if he did try to hide from immigration officials, I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article at all. Let's just for the sake of argument presume he WAS trying to hide from the immigration officials. Now if I'm a perfectly honest fellow, and I'm coming into Australia and I absolutely know that regardless of my honesty and innocence I will be detained for certain. Do I really wish to be detained? Not at all. How could I evade this distasteful experience, I suppose I would evade the guards. Is this not a plausible situation? Is it not possible that in fact this man could be the most honest man on the planet and still try to evade immigration officials?

Interesting. I would rather a 1000 innocent men be punished than let one murderer go free. Basically you're saying it's ok to incarcerate a population in order to prevent 0.1% of that population being free? You're saying it's ok to deprive 999 individuals of their, who are completely innocent in order to ensure that 1 person is not allowed to go free? Now let's just, for the sake of argument, create a hypothetical town, this town is called Brownsville, it has 1001 inhabitants, Brownsville is has really strict traffic laws, and nobody goes in or out between the hours of 6am and 6pm, let's just presume this is followed to the letter by all. Now, one morning at 5.59am, John Doe is found dead, there are now 999 innocent inhabitants, 1 corpse and 1 murderer in Brownsville. Are you saying, that faced with this situation, you would imprison the entire population of Brownsville, based on the fact that you know there is a murder in their midst? In fact, since you clearly stipulated that you would rather see 1000 innocent punished than 1 guilty one go free then even if the punishment was ridiculously harsh you would still rather see it inflicted on 1000 men rather than have 1 go free. So let's just say the law in Brownsville calls for immediate executiong by burning of a murderer, are you suggesting that you would be fine with having the entire town punished in this way than the murderer go free? Moreover, if you were to take 1000 asylum seekers, could you even have anything approaching knowledge that there was even a single murderer in their midst? No I don't think you could, so even the Brownsville analogy is not as extreme as what you're advocating. You are saying that there might be a murderer in every 1000 asylum seekers and given this mere suspicion you are saying they should be incarcerated. This is more like imprisoning the population of Brownsville based on a suspicion that someone from Brownsville might have murdered somebody. Now, let's say YOU lived in Brownsville, would you be absolutely content to be imprisoned because you have a 1 in 1000 chance of being a murderer? How is this in any way just? Quite frankly if Australians were treated according to this logic, there would be massive public outcry over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
I don't know what you were trying to say with the Martyn Bryant analogy, so I can't really comment on that.
What I am saying is this. Martin Bryant may very well have jaywalked in his time, but this has NO bearing whatsoever on his real crime. In the same way that is a person immigrates illegally, this is certainly a misdemenour, but does not in any way relate to their subsequent crimes if they commit any in any sense of justice of culpability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
Here's another major difference in our opinions: You say we cannot use the risk of a future crime being committed by any of these people as a reason to stop them entering. I say that is definately a reason for denying entry.
Ok. So now you're advocating the policy that people might commit crimes in the future, and based on that they ought not be let in. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are there not criminals, born and bred in Australia who might commit a crime in the future? Now, surely, there's a risk that they might, and therefore, much like the immigrants who might commit crimes in the future, we should ensure they aren't allowed to live in this country. I myself have the capacity, right now to commit a crime. Why not lock me up? Because I haven't ACTUALLY broken any laws. You can't possibly say that they should be turned away from Australia based purely on the mere possibility that they might commit a crime in the future, in fact you can't turn them away on the basis of a distinct probability that they could commit a crime in the future. Now, maybe if they had committed a crime in the past, you could argue for turning them away, but you're saying that 'definitely' the reason for denying entry is the possibility of future crime, DESPITE the fact they have not ACTUALLY broken the law. Does this not strike you as unjust?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
If there is any reasonable chance of a crime being committed on the persons or property of an Australian citizen by one of these people then we cannot grant them entry.
Well, I guess that no more tourists can be allowed into Australia. Tourists have committed crimes in this country in the past, they certainly have the capacity to do so now. There's a reasonable, in that it is not beyond the limits of reason, and is in fact quite plausible chance that a tourist could commit a crime against the persons or property of an Australian. Therefore, we ought not grant them entry. There is a reasonable chance of ANY human being in this country committing a crime against another, but a reasonable chance does not constitute an actual crime, in fact a very real threat of committing a crime does not constitute an actual crime does it. If I go about claiming that I wholly intend to rob a bank, purchase the weapons and equipment needed to do so, make it clear to all and sundry that I am going to rob a bank and moreover, I am going to rob the bank on the corner of Down and Up streets, they cannot arrest me until I actually commit a crime. If I walk up to the doors of the bank with an 12 gauge shotgun (lets assume that it's not an offense to carry a loaded weapon around in public, but that aside) they can't arrest me. Now you're saying that even if I can do all this, making it a clear probability that I am going to commit a crime, and not be arrested, it is still ok for people to be imprisoned based on the suspicion that theymight intend to commit a crime. In fact, not even this, just the existence of the possibility that they are capable and could in fact commit a crime is enough for you. What essentially divides me from them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
The people here are citizens by birthright or have worked hard to gain citizenship legally and we cannot compromise their trust and safety by letting people in who we have little information about.
How much do we know about tourists who come into this country? Let's just say I'm a wealthy, ruthless Mafia boss. Am I going to have trouble getting a passport? No, am I going to have trouble getting into Australia? No. We let them in, despite the fact that we know nothing about them Does this not compromise the safety of citizens? Moreover, how is 'birthright' a meaningful quality whatsoever, being born in Australia is not an achievment of the mucus coated infant who results, yet you suggest that by virtue of their existence beginning within an arbitrary geographical construct actually means they have more of a right to be here than anyone else. Martin Bryant, Brendan Abbot, Chopper Read and Christopher Skase are all Australians by birthright are they not. They are also criminals are they not. Being born in Australia in no way reduced their criminality does it not? In fact being born in Australia does not in any way meaningfully make them more deserving of being a citizen of this country does it not? You are saying, that the purely legal distinction between an Australian citizen, and someone born in another country has any meaning whatsoever in an ethical sense? Does it in any way influence the injustice of what occurs? Consider this, for the sake of argument, there are ten people in Bolivia, all of them are going to be executed by an insane local military official, these ten people are 5 Australians, and 5 asylum seekers. Now the captain says to you: 'You can save 5', do you save the Australians because they are Australians? What if all 5 Australians were paedophiles? Would you still save them simply by virtue of the fact that they were Australian. Whatever you did, it would be an injustice for 5 people to die regardless of their nationality, place of birth or status as citizens of this or any other country. There is no actual, meaningful distinction between an asylum seeker and an Australian citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
How do Britain deal with their illegal immigrants?
From the British Deparment of Immigration website:

Quote:
We are keen to see asylum seekers and recognised refugees take an active interest in the welfare of their own communities and the local community by undertaking voluntary activity while they are in the UK. But it must be borne in mind that, in the case of asylum seekers, they may not be given the right to remain here. They should therefore not be led to believe that voluntary activity is regarded as a step towards refugee status being granted.
Clearly, while people's claims for asylum are being investigated they are assimilated into the community and are in fact encouraged to take an active role in their communities. This country is not being flooded with hordes of refugees, nor is it being destroyed by pursuing this policy.

Last edited by Kostya; 09-13-2004 at 06:59 AM..
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 02:38 PM   #22 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: 'Straylia
It's funny that us being the largest nation founded by criminals, and once were the largest gaol ever... are scared of a few "criminals". But any ways being a refugee doesn't mean that you're escaping war as put by a few people but as websters revised Unabridged dictionary puts it;
Ref`u*gee"\ (r?f`?*j?"), n. [F. r['e]fugi['e], fr. se r['e]fugier to take refuge. See Refuge, n.] 1. One who flees to a shelter, or place of safety.

2. Especially, one who, in times of persecution or political commotion, flees to a foreign power or country for safety; as, the French refugees who left France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes.
Mr_Wall is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:19 PM   #23 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Perth, Australia
Nothing justifies keeping a man who has committed no crime behind bars for seven years. _Seven years_. Just think for a minute as to how long that is. It boggles my mind that people think parochial arguments like "we mustn't set a dangerous precedent" can in any way justify these inhuman policies. They represent the way Australia has come to consider refugees and asylum seekers, with suspicion and without an ounce of compassion. We've become a nation of heartless bastards and paranoid wankers, and it's going to come back to bite us in the arse one day.
__________________
"Look, I'm pretty relaxed for a guy who just lost money on a rave. And who's currently speeding down the highway drunk off my tits. And I'm being chased by someone in a blue Corolla. Woohoo! I just ran a red light!"
auswegian is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 04:53 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
We have rules like every other nation, without them you can have mayhem. Although it doesn't take away in human way they are treated, that must change.
woody1 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 07:55 PM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Not sure what you mean by this woody. Are you supporting the policy or opposing it?

The issue remains that it's entirely within the power of Minister Vanstone to offer a "compassionate visa" for anyone. Though, to be honest, a Minister who goes on record comparing refugees to dogs that should be locked up is not really that likely to do that, is she?

Still angry.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 04:00 AM   #26 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
You know what angers me...

Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 07:52 AM   #27 (permalink)
Loose Cunt
 
Meridae'n's Avatar
 
Location: North Bondi RSL
Sorry boys, I've been on 12 hour shifts all week and have been too buggered to read/post anything serious. I'll get back over the weekend and reply (I actually will do it this time!). I'm especially looking forward to Mr Mephisto's blaming of everything on Howard and Kostya's tourist analogy

Cheers.
__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?
Meridae'n is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 02:30 PM   #28 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: 'Straylia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
looking forward to Mr Mephisto's blaming of everything on Howard.
I'm not Mephisto but it is Howards fault
Mr_Wall is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 12:37 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
almostaugust's Avatar
 
Location: Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Well, some of you have simply reinforced my opinion that a great deal of middle Australia is NOT the caring, multi-cultural, happy go lucky, welcoming and "fair go" country that it likes to think it is.

This country has changed, considerably, for the worse in the four years I've been here.

Racism, misinformation, lack of compassion... all of it thanks to Howard in my opinion.

Who says One Nation was an aberration?


Mr Mephisto
Yeah, Australia definately has an ugly side to it. The reason why One nation collapsed was because Howard adapted most of thier policies. Howard is undoubtedly a racist, his early 1980s ideas about asian people speak for themselves.
I think 'the dangerous precedent' was set in 1939 when Jews were refused asylum fleeing nazi germany and were forced to turn back. This is one of the main reason we have this law. We should be giving them 'a fair go', and at least treating them like bloody human beings.
almostaugust is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 03:39 AM   #30 (permalink)
Upright
 
Victimless Crime?

How do you define a victimless crime? Sometimes we do not see the person being hurt, but none-the-less it is considered illegal. Fraud is often called a victimless crime, but at the end of the day it is still a crime.
I am at uni and listen to people every day crap on about these poor imprisoned refugees. THEY ARENT REFUGEES, THEY ARE ILLEGAL REFUGEES!
Do we need to fucking relabel them so retards cant confuse the two?
Look at Germany's free refugee policy a while ago, all it did was cause extremism and racism to flourish due to their downturn in jobs, and these refugees supposedly being the ones stealing these jobs. People have to be careful which streets to walk down or end up beaten or DEAD from skinheads.
You think we are racist now? Wait and see the worst come out when we have ILLEGAL refugees working at half the wage we do.
korzen is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 04:50 PM   #31 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: 'Straylia
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzen
THEY ARENT REFUGEES, THEY ARE ILLEGAL REFUGEES!
Whats an Illegal refugee? there is no such thing... Read earlier post to meaning of refugee....
Illegal immigrants yes, but completely different to a refugee in reasons why they are trying to get entry
Mr_Wall is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 05:01 PM   #32 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzen
Look at Germany's free refugee policy a while ago, all it did was cause extremism and racism to flourish due to their downturn in jobs, and these refugees supposedly being the ones stealing these jobs. People have to be careful which streets to walk down or end up beaten or DEAD from skinheads.
You think we are racist now? Wait and see the worst come out when we have ILLEGAL refugees working at half the wage we do.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it kind of sounds like you're saying that refugees aren't good because they make people racist...
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 05:37 AM   #33 (permalink)
Upright
 
Let me tell you something of my experiences. My uncle from the UK married an Aussie lass. He's over 65 and not in the best of health. Financially he's got a enough money to get a deposit on a home in a good suburb in Melbourne and basic super. He came out, got married, applied to stay and volia 3 months later he's in. Long term he'll be a drain on health-care resources, will be participating in unskilled labour and won't be paying much tax.

My mate from Italy married a school friend and it took him 18 months, a trip back to Italy in order to reapply and a whole lot of hassle to get in. He's highly skilled, young, starting a family and even has family out here (the reason for his inital visit) but it was still quite an effort to become a permanent resident.

Some poor buggers risk their life to get here, often in fear for their lives. Obviously they should be filling out forms and waiting for the UN to find them a new home like all the other good little refugees but sometimes famines, genocide and war aren't that fun. Commonly they are young (the old ones often don't survive the journey) and highly skilled. Whatever enthuisam and desire to contribute to our community is deliberately destroyed by sending them to a prision and treating them like animals.

In my view the system is clearly racist. Johnny's monarchist mates are still favouring applications from the "old country" above all else. We hardly take in any refugees at all - up until recently something like 2-3000/ year - now about 6,000 (try-hard election promise). We take in 1 refugee to every 1,961 Aussies. In Canada (similar population size to us) it is 1:980 and in Britain it is 1:604.

My understanding of the New Zealand system is that refugees are allowed to hold jobs and interact with the community whilst awaiting the outcome of their application to become a permanent resident. This has been very sucessful and there is a very low rate of "disapperances". It hasn't seemed to have opened the floodgates. Admittedly it is geographically harder to get there so they have less refugees but there has to be something better than what we've got now. If we followed NZ's lead the Australian Government would'nt waste my bloody taxes jailing some poor bloke for 7 years and paying out $400,000- more than 7 years work for me!!!!
RocketMan is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 06:58 AM   #34 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hmmmm, I recall a certain promise someone made some time ago about this thread...

Whatever happened?
Kostya is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 03:43 PM   #35 (permalink)
Tilted
 
it truly boils my blood to read some of the responces to this artical!
7 years of this guys life are gone! he can never get them back NEVER and there is a good chance that he will be in there for the rest of his life!!! DAMN.
really have we become that much of a heartless country that we cant do somthing to help him!
alpha666 is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 10:22 PM   #36 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Sydney
I think RocketMan has a very good point. In this county we let people who are accused of all sorts of crimes continue to exist in society on bail, because we have a presumption of innocence. Shouldn't this presumption apply to people from other countries who come to this country seeking our compassion?

This issue doesn't make me embarrased to be an Austrailan, it makes me angry that some of our politicians are prepared to use fear as a political weapon, and to exploit an issue such as this for their own gain.
holgs is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 05:49 AM   #37 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Brisbane Australia
Maybe we need to google the words
refugee and
illegal immigrant

this issue is multi-factorial
1. the people making the money are not the ones in detention
2. many are often i imagine aliens of some sort in there own country
i.e. civil war, destroyed records office, massive inflation
3. they often sold everything to get here
4. and there country of origin often says
a. we dont know who they are
b. where are there official papers .. sorry dropped them when i swam the last 10km
c. they are not "refugees" from anything .. may or may not be true ..
d. they may be "criminals" wrongly or right in their country
e. there country will not pay to have them returned, which becomes moot when you consider costs after even 6 months in detention
f. they have not entered through the correct channels which we all know can be subjective, time-wasting and anal .. but they are the channels until they change
Non-landlocked countries have the option of a wall and a firm "no"
Not so easy for Australia when they have floated on a barrel the last 80km and would need to be taken to international waters .. to where? at whose cost? etc ..
__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.
Anibal5 is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 05:56 AM   #38 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Brisbane Australia
Many comments above are incorrectly comparing "citizens" and rights of
with "refugee" and the rights of ... apples and oranges people

a bit like going to sweden on a tourist visa and demanding "rights" that you get at home if your arrested for something and whinging like a bastard when you dont get it, and why dont you get it? Because your not a Swedish citizen .....

Right and wrong are justified perspectives
If you want to put yourself at the mercy of others and get surprised when you dont get a positive outcome why is it their fault?
__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.
Anibal5 is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 07:19 AM   #39 (permalink)
Little known...
 
Kostya's Avatar
 
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Because Australia is a signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, along with Sweden, which affords people. regardless of their status as 'citizens' certain rights due to their status as human beings, these people are currently being denied those rights.

Also, I guess by your logic, the Australian soldiers who surrendered at Singapore, 'putting themselves at the mercy of others' and were then treated with horrific brutality have shouldn't have been outraged...

Wasn't the fault of the perpetrators or anything...
Kostya is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 08:47 PM   #40 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Brisbane Australia
good distinction kostya
my unclear point above was that

a. when you put yourself at the mercy of others and their subjective analysis its just that .. their mercy
of course you should be treated as a human being and many comparisons above regarding criminal law are loose at best but valid when considering a global sliding scale of culturally acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour and what seems to be the punishment for said infractions

at the end of it though ... you are at the mercy of your hosts .. no matter how justified your decision was and the global rights that you should be entitled too i.e. declarations that you have stated above

I am never ashamed to be Australian

Forgetting that politicians are human beings and are just self-serving robots whose sole drive is to be re-elected .... I cant see any thing positive to come from this limbo

The true crime as above stated is that;
The ones that make it I am sure are a minority
The masterminds behind this organisation are not in the detention centre
__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.
Anibal5 is offline  
 

Tags
austalian, embarrassed, make


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360