OK
Top marks to the navy for apprehending this boat, But the question of how to stem the flow remains unanswered.
No way in . . . HMAS Albany shadows the fishing boat containing 54 Afghan asylum seekers near Ashmore Island off Australia's north-west coast yesterday. Photo: Chantal Parslow
THE eighth boatload of asylum seekers to arrive in Australian waters this year was intercepted near Ashmore Reef, off the West Australian coast, late yesterday.
The vessel, which had sailed from Indonesia, had 54 Afghan asylum seekers on board, including women and children.
An oil rig tender vessel alerted the Customs and Border Protection hotline, whose vessel confirmed the sighting. Within an hour a Royal Australian Navy patrol boat, HMAS Albany, had intercepted the vessel.
The group voluntarily transferred from their boat to the Albany, Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus said late yesterday.
Mr Debus said the successful interception demonstrated the effectiveness of the surveillance by border protection commands.
Of course my friends from the left are in denial that the change of policy by Brother Number One has anything to do with the upsurge in numbers and they have instead taken to vilifying any one who dares suggest that we should sent these people back to where they came from. Because it seems to me that the prompt and well publicised repatriation of those who arrive illegally would do more to stem the flow than any number of high level discussions with our neighbours to the north.
Ah but I am just a simple bloke who sees the obvious…
Cheers Comrades
But Iain, your comment seems to confirm that your underlying opposition to the current ‘situation’ is that you simply do not want Australia to accept refugees.
Why not put the issue into perspective. Is it really such a big problem? I think this makes about 550 boat people intercepted over the past 8 months. Not all of them will be accepted.
(PS: As you know, I don’t deny that the Govt’s more humane treatment of boat people might have encouraged a few more to make the trip. But do you deny that the other reason is an increase world-wide in those seeking asylum due to world events?)
Pingback: Boat people #2 « Alpine Opinion
One facet that is beginning to fascinate me ?
Who is giving them the course to Ashmore Reef / Island ?
None of these vessels’ seem to have satellite navigation, or any other form of navigational sophistication by the looks of it, who is giving them the directions (presumably in Indonesia), of where to head, and how ?
By the way…..
I agree with your assertion Iain.
It would only take one boat being escorted back to the border of Indonesian waters, given a swift kick in the “rudder”, a load of fuel, and an aimed m16 to point the way, and I would think the tide would fall to a trickle ?
OK Ray
I have read thoroughly what You have said at yours and I will go through the comment part of your post and give you a point by point reply
Well thank you for at least conceding that the changes by the government of Brother Number one is a big factor in this new up swing in boat arrivals. But the fact is that I do not deny that the situation in their home countries is far from rosy, but what does it for me is the fact that many of them seem to spend rather long periods living in rather safer countries like Indonesia where the seen to be able to make money and live peacefully. If they can do that for a number of years then to my mind it rather negates the claim that they are fleeing for their lives and changes their status from refugees to would be immigrants.
Yes it is a problem and the numbers are not the reason that it is a problem. It is the fact that they seek to come here outside this countries very generous refugee programs. To make this simple how would you feel if some one were to just arrive at Grevillia Gardens and take up residence in one of your units uninvited and without booking (or offering to pay the tariff) taking the place of someone else who had done the right thing to properly acquire the right to use your facilities? This is precisely the same thing writ large.
It is very easy to feel compassion for the individual , and I do. However when you look at the bigger picture you see that while it may seem heartless to send a few individuals back the greater good of discouraging people taking up the people smugglers deceptive offers (of being able to get them to Australia ) will save more lives in the long run. Why only last night on the channel seven News there was an interview with an Iraqi man in Indonesia who told of seeing women and children drown when the boat they were in sank (in Indonesian waters BTW). So what is more cruel than that?
If they are getting into boats in Indonesia then send them back there in the first instance but their country of origin seem a pretty good idea to me. But if their boats are sea worthy and they have competent crew giving them the option or returning the way that they have come is entirely reasonable. Of course if their boats are not sea worthy of they deliberately sabotage them then naturally we fulfil or obligation to preserve their lives (as ship wrecked people on the open sea) , but then we return them to Indonesia as we would any other rescued mariner.
This is a silly question Ray, do you really think that these people are so naive that they don’t read the news or watch the TV? Australia could even buy advertising time on the Indonesian media
What I am saying is that we certainly should not accept one person who arrives in a leaky boat Ray we should send them back with the instruction to apply through the right channels or make a life in the countries that they have been able to safely reside in while they sought to raise the money to pay people smugglers for passage here. The time that these people seem to spend in safety in intermediate countries seems to be totally ignored by all of the lefties when considering this matter but I think that it is very important.
Australia is very generous in world terms when it comes to accepting “asylum seekers” but there has to be limits and it should be the Australian people who set those limits, not the scummy people smugglers or their sad clients.
I’ll give you credit for civility Ray, but then you and I have always understood that mature debate is all about playing the issue rather than the person but I just think that your perception of what is” humane” is in fact too narrow and when you look at the bigger picture you will see that the issue of people seeking a new and better life in western nations is a very large problem and rather than just going all gooey and saying “yes we will let you in” which will just end up causing huge social problems (look and France or the UK or even elements of the Lebanese e community in Sydney) and maybe some “tough love” is called for instead.
David at least one report suggest that they have used a GPS which have become rather inexpensive recently.
The latest arrival, of Sri Lankans, warrants a closer look at their situation, and a few questions (probably asked by Immigration as well) need to be asked ?
Sri Lanka has a population of about 20m at last count approximately.
They have been in an off/on civil war since about 1983.
They have a population density of average 800 or so, per square mile, so fairly well jammed in.
First major question is ….What has changed ? What has caused them to all of a sudden risk it all, and hit the “leaky boats” ? Sri Lanka is not technically “backward”, they watch the news like all of us do. After all, this is not a new situation over there. This has been going on for over 25 years ? What has caused them to all of a sudden, hit the boats ?
They know the world is going through an economic recession (or whatever the denialists’ want to call it). Most countries have closed their immigration borders, and denying access to all, but those who are on the lucky “needed” list ? This isn’t Saigon in the 70′s we are dealing with. They are not about to be over run by the “red menace”. The remaining 19m 999k don’t seem to want to evacuate the country en masse, so what is going on here ?
We are concentrating our thoughts on the people smugglers in Indonesia, but a further valid question is, how are they getting from Sri Lanka to Indonesia ? Tamil Airways ?
Australia has always been seen as a “soft touch”. A country abundant in natural resource wealth, plenty of space, great climate and lifestyle. A natural attraction to anyone wanting to emigrate. But that is not the case of recent times is it ? Unemployment growing, natural resources and trademarks, being sold off at bargain prices to oppressive trading partners, who undercut us at the first opportunity ?
I think being humanitarian is good, but we need to take a step back, and realise, that we are being smacked in the gob with a wet fish, and being taken advantage of.
“Because it seems to me that the prompt and well publicised repatriation of those who arrive illegally would do more to stem the flow than any number of high level discussions with our neighbours to the north.”
Iain, a cornerstone of international refugee law is the principle of nonrefoulement. What it means is that a nation which receives an asylum seeker cannot force them to return to the country from which they have fled. Australia recognises this principle. Your suggestion here – that Sri Lankan asylum seekers be “repatriated” – contravenes that principle. In short, what you advocate is illegal.
Only if they actually are “refugees” Damian I and many others would argue that they are economic migrants, especially if they have spent extended periods of time in countries other than their homeland.
Iain, that is not for you to decide.
Yes it is Toaf.
It is for everyone in the country of destination to decide. That is why they do it. Repatriation is a drastic step, and one not often taken, that is why they keep coming. They take a punt on the “better part of our nature” and hit the waves.
It would only take one ship to be escorted back, and I think that would solve the problem in an instant.
David, if someone arrives and claims asylum then their application is to be assessed and action taken in accordance with Australia’s international obligations. It is not up to the likes of you and Iain to act as judge and jury from your comfortable little spot behind your keyboard.
As David says It is down to all of the people of Australia to decide either though he ballot box or through making our opinions known in media like this blog. In any case “international obligations” is a rather spurious notion especially when you consider just how so many instruments of the UN are such a load of tosh. As I have told you before I don’t think that we have an obligation to mitigate the suffering of every other person on the planet (mainly because it is impossible to do anyway) and that there has to come a point at which we say that we are doing enough.
David, it’s actually pretty easy to navigate a boat on the open sea so long as you have a sextant and a watch. I’ve done it myself once and I was being trained on the job (I was actually a passenger on a friends boat for a couple of weeks).
And people were doing it pretty well on their own for a couple of hundred years before GPS and not so well for thousands of years before that with just the sextant and not the watch. It gets a bit harder then but it’s not impossible.
In fact, prior to GPS (I betcha you didn’t know this one) trans-oceanic aircraft used to make do with a compass and dead reckoning – just point the plane on the right bearing and go for it. They used to then figure out where they were when they made landfall on the other side using a bit of map-reading and maybe some help from ground control if they got lucky and ended up within radar range.
It’s not hard. Indonesian fisherman do it all the time and have been doing it for centuries.
True enough JM.
My point is, who is telling them, that Ashmore is the place to go ? Why not Port Hedland, or even closer still, the Cocos Islands, also Australian turf, virtually just down the road ?
I am extremely suspicious of their destination. It’s as if, they know that immigration has a set up there, and want to get into the system, as quick as possible, as if they know the result ?
Having served in the military, especially, in Somalia, I saw the desperation of the people living under unbelievable terror there, from the War Lords, and how difficult it was for them to be allowed into our country, I just don’t see the circumstances, in Sri Lanka being as desperate or in the same league of dire need, as those poor people were. There has to be some consistency here. Sure there was a few changes of government in the interim, but I didn’t see entrance requirements lowered then, and certainly they shouldn’t be now ?
David, get a map. Ashmore reef is the part of Australia closest to Indonesia. The Cocos and Port Headland are much further away.
Further, the point about “getting into the system” is completely wrong headed. Ashmore Reef was excised from the immigration zone in 2001 so while they may “get into the system” it’s entirely the wrong part of it as their rights are reduced.
So you’re right, they would be better going to Port Headland as they could claim asylum immediately, but you’re wrong because it’s much further away.
If I was sitting in Indonesia I’d look at the distance from West Timor to Ashmore and think “not too far so possible” and compare it to the distance West Timor to Port Headland and think “b***dy hell, that looks really suicidal”
The distance would seem to be irrelevent ? What about the distance from Sri Lanka to Indonesia ?
That seems to have been forgotten. Again, my question is, who is financing, and providing the journey leg, from Sri Lanka to Indonesia, and how. That seems to be the problem. You were talking about distance and associated dangers from sea voyages, they are coping the journey from Sri Lanka to Indonesia, so the ongoing journey to Australia would seem to be well within their grasp ?
Again, I think the problem is not Indonesia. They are only passing the buck onto someone else, and unfortuneately that’s us ?
Oh I see, Iain. The Australian government no longer has to fulfil its international responsibilites if you and your little mates disagree with them. Can’t argue with that.
I do take issue with your claim that international responsibility is a “spurious notion”. I think it’s time you learned a little about Australia’s laws in this area.
David I’d expect them to come overland
The Indian Ocean is pretty dangerous, much more so than the Pacific (that’s why they call it the ….), so distance is a consideration. If you’re suggesting they go straight from Sri Lanka to Cocos or Port Headland then you’re talking about a really long trip in some pretty rough water.
Furthermore that little leg from the subcontinent to Indonesia is riddled with pirates and before those feisty newcomers (the Somali’s) got into the act was the most dangerous area for pirates in the world.
Look these are Indonesian fishing boats, every report I’ve read has made that point, and the Indonesian’s have been fishing off Australia for decades if not centuries. I can’t see why if they’re going to get into the transportation business, they’d suddenly see a need to forgo all their experience and knowledge and strike out in unchartered waters.
So given that everyone is coming from Indonesia doesn’t it make sense to get some action from the Indonesian side? Encourage them to stop passing the buck? Although since fingerpointing generally involves a pointee and isn’t done in secret, it’s more likely they’re turning a blind eye.
Which makes the current government’s actions in engaging with Indonesia, you know to give them some encouragement, seem like a good idea.
I agree JM, but we have a tenuous relationship with Indonesia at best. They are extremely arrogant when it comes to regional politics, and have been since ‘forever’. They are not going to do anything that would lessen the appearance, that they are totally “in control”. If they were to take advice, or more importantly, be seen as being influenced by a foreign power, their power base would vapourise overnight. Let’s face it, they have 600m or so people squeezed into a space totally less than half of this continent, and suffered many coups, and revolutions over the years, so not a good idea to rock the population boat.
They have a large navy, but with boats that hardly could be described as sea worthy, let alone being able to protect their borders ? They are manned by personnel rarely paid, with low morale. About the only service of note, is the army, and that is only because they are filled with enforced conscripts. So, I think of the resources needed to allow them to do what you suggest, and flounder, as to where they are going to find them.
I still, even though it is a drastic, and could be seen as an unhumanitarian act to perpertrate, the best solution is to turn a few back.
David I don’t know which Indonesia you’re talking about.
“tenuous relationship ”
We’ve trained their military for decades and signed a military alliance circa 96 with them (although Howard dropped this) and then a closer economic relationship agreement about 6 months before the last election.
“600m ” Actually somewhere around 190m from memory, you might be mistaking them for India circa 1970.
“people squeezed into a space totally less than half of this continent,” True nuff but it’s geographic extent is very large despite being mostly islands.
“suffered many coups, and revolutions over the years”
Well only 1 that I can recall, the one that brought Suharto to power. 2 if you include the IMF in 97
” the only service of note, is the army, and that is only because they are filled with enforced conscripts.”
Also true enough, but it is a source of stability that serves to hold the country together albeit in corrupt ways (the IMF reforms had an impact though). And I think there’s plenty of evidence over the years to show that if you’re a refugee (as opposed to the Australian Defence Forces) the Indonesian Army is plenty capable of finding you and making your life hell.
“could be seen as an unhumanitarian act to perpertrate, the best solution is to turn a few back.”
Try illegal. We’re signatories to the Refugees Convention and have obligations. So does Indonesia. Makes sense to ask them to live up to their obligations but we can only expect them to do that if we live up to ours as well.
Turning a few back is an abrogation of our obligations and they have every right to ignore us when we behave hypocritically.
That’s a “tenuous relationship” in the same sense that Australia’s responsibilities are a “spurious notion”. You lads really need to come to grips with the facts before airing your opinions.
Damian
I love the way that you lefties think that anything from the UN is some sort of holy writ ; forever immutable and beyond challenge when the reality is that may of these instruments are a product of their time and often become out dated as the world changes.
The so called “anti racism” conference is a good example of just how flawed much of the UN practice actually is, yet for you lot anything with the UN imprimatur is sacrosanct.
In this country we are free to air our opinions as we please and while it may distress you to hear opinions that do not coincide with your own, for as long as I draw breath I will state my opinions with openness and candour any time I please.
So do you Toaf.
You have only seen the rosy pictures portrayed by our politicians, diplomats, and newspapers.
Having been in the military, I know for a fact, that if Indonesia had a navy of ships, that could physically get to Australia, they would invade us en masse in a heartbeat.
You say that if we turned them back, it would be seen as an illegal act internationally ? What is Indonesia doing then ? Isn’t that also internationally illegal as well ?
As for illegal, yes, you are correct in saying that denying access for refugees is illegal, but that’s the point isn’t it ? If they can financially afford to pay people smugglers in another country for transport, they can hardly be classed as refugees, or people fleeing for their lives can they ? What did they do, leave their wifes and families behind, but made certain they travelled with American Xpress Gold Card ?
As I have said, if they are legitimate yep, no problems with me, but that is yet to be proven, and until then, sorry.
As for the United Nations, WOTAM (I cleaned that up for you Iain ?). As soon as the pressure gets too hot, or a serious decision has to be made, it gets buried in a committee somewhere. They are a joke, and have been ever since they s**t themselves over Milosovic and his deeds, Mugabe, Idi Amin, need I go on ? That organisation continues to present itself as the joke on humanity it is.
Looks like being another mega-post Iain! Well done.
Prickly one and I find myself flipping about depending on the specifics of each case. I think comment needs to be more pointed to origins in each case. I like to tackle a problem at it’s source. We can’t fix ‘em all but lets start with the worst where we have most to gain. Afghanistan seems to be the hotspot coming up in this scenario the most and apparently the worlds #1 source of refugees. But what do any of us know about the situation really? The government is a disaster and reportedly corrupt. Aid money vanishes, no jobs, no infrastructure. Ultimately the majority of individuals in this instance are economic refugees. Given the situation were happening to my family I would probably do likewise. And we are fighting – not so much to help their government as to stop the Taliban from taking over. Potentially a worse situation! The Taliban draws support from desperate individuals as well and extremism thrives.
Now here is one for the climate and anti-mining lobby; The only resource that the country has are natural ones; a HUGE and undeveloped resource of Natural gas, petroleum, gold, copper and Iron ore. This could solve their problems (and most of our boatloads of refugees). Should they dig it up and sell it/burn it? Mind you , if an extremist government gets control it will either stay in the ground or the money will be used to further expansion of the evil empire. And/or there is no way you will get any foreign investment to develop it. I think Australia should take an active role in resource development and put the country on the road to economic freedom. Why us? ‘Cos noone trusts the Americans in the Middle east! But… they will need a fair secular government at the helm and that may be the undoing of the plan.
Iain, you might have noticed that the link I offered was not to the UN but to the Australian government.
David, after your earlier efforts you have lost the right to speculate about what Indonesians think, feel, or might do. I notice you didn’t even bother to reply when your fact-loose comment was pulled apart and exposed for the nonsense it is. You and Iain are peas in a pod.
I did answer you Toaf. Perhaps with something you loathe to hear, but there it is.
If you want me to further comment, or answer your question, then please specify which question and be a little more civil about it ?
In so far as speculating about Indonesia (s), there is no speculation about it, and being ex military, including that region, I find myself uniquely qualified to comment. That’s not ego, that is just the way it is. My knowledge of Indonesia goes well beyond the relative la-la tourist vista of Bali.
If you are talking about laws regarding refugees, then hey, I agree with you, and have, but these people have yet to be proven as refugees have they ? That is my point.
If they are legit refugees, then as I have said, yep, certainly let them in, but my point is, that if they have the resources to wait, and save, to pay smugglers to get them here, then things can’t be as bad as they say can they ?
Link Damian?
I read your comment in the WordPress comments browser and hyper links do not show up in that unless you move the cursor over them. Having looked at it just what part do you wish to cite? I am rather uninterested in reading lots of irrelevant information because you are unwilling to refine your citations to the particulars that support your argument.
In any case this disclaimer from the front page says it all.
My bold BTW
Shorter Iain and David: “All international relationships with foreign countries, especially those that we don’t like, shall be conducted out of the barrel of a gun; national interest be damned”
We have to deal with the Indonesians on many things, often to our advantage: vis oil in the Timor Sea, joint military cooperation for our defence, trade, finance (making sure Indonesia doesn’t fall apart like in 1997 and become the unstable nightmare David fears) etc, etc.
That means we have to talk to them …. and come to agreements with them. It’s what adults do. It’s what the UN is for, so grown ups can solve mutual problems. And sign treaties that they mean to stick by.
The alternative is to treat them with contempt (something the last government was pretty good at) make a hell of a lot of trouble for them until they really get pissed off. In the final analysis here’s what they could do:-
Push any and all refugees they get (including those from places like Burma, southern Thailand, Malaysia etc) off into commandeered shipping boats and head them our way. Then they could really get going and start up an industrial policy establishing a fishing boat construction industry in West Timor and ship all their internal dissidents down there (Acah etc) to make up the numbers.
A spot of industrial scale ethnic cleansing in other words. (And I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that the corrupt kleptocracy that is the Indonesian Army – parts of it anyway – is perfectly capable of doing this if motivated enough.)
Now what is the Australian Navy going to do? Shell the lot? And if we don’t shell them, then what? Let ‘em wander the desert and die of thirst?
That’d go down a real treat with the rest of the world who could quite possibly – via the UN – decide to impose a few economic sanctions on us and stuff up employment in this country.
So we’d go from housing and processing a few hundred desperate people a year to having to deal with a real human tide of tens of thousands. Is that what you want?
Your solutions might make you sound rational over a beer, but in the real world you just sound like a couple of dumb drunks.
I agree with you JM. Legit refugees, yep no probs.
You are talking about Indonesians, the problem is Sri Lankans travelling from Sri Lanka, through Indonesia, changing craft, and then sent our way.
Boats from Sri Lanka, fuelled up and sent our way, nup !
Another thing, if we started to allow a few boats in, do you honestly there would only be 2-300 ? Even Howard knew that once the gates were opened just adjar, then all hell would break loose.
A couple of dumb drunks huh ? Hmm, at least we can tell the difference between indonesians and Sri Lankans. These are not refugees. Just those wanting a better life, and after having been shown the customary immigration “all full” sign, have devised another way to try and get in, around the rules.
JM
What a desperate rant!
Talk about taking some ones argument and extrapolating it beyond all recognition,
You lefties are all the same, totally lacking the courage to make any kind of hard decision; the hard decision is to promptly make a judgement to the true status of these people and then act upon it. The essence of the UN definition of what constitutes a refugee is ridiculously broad, a claimant only has to demonstrate a “fear” of being persecuted, rather than evidence of actual persecution. Talk about smoke and mirrors sheesh
Oh and by the way I am for all intents and purposes a teetotaller so drop the “dumb Drunks” stuff or its back to moderation for you
Pingback: Well it MUST be three more boats actually… « IAIN HALL
Iain! Is this yours mate?:
Found it at the end of the thread…
“(Posts “Another asylum boat stopped by navy” becoming a far too regular headlinePandemicOuch!!Old dogs and new tricks Undeniable Silicone tits.Big black pussy bike Handy gardening)”
I may take up gardening as a hobby now.
I was trying to link to JM’s comment, Beevo, but obviously picked the wrong thing to link to
but it has resulted in a rather amusing link. I have fixed it now so it goes to the comment in question.
better value than the links I been reading the last couple of days ?
Iain
I’m just reflecting the natural outcome of your preferred “solution”.
It’s not a matter of being “perhaps inhumane” or “hard but fair” or “necessary” or whatever other shibboleth you want to drag up.
The reality is it doesn’t and won’t work.
Explain yourself JM
because asserting that it doesn’t and won’t work. does not make your case.
Iain
I have made my case. I’ve summarized yours:-
1. ignore the UN and our international obligations
2. “discourage” refugees by the following measures (in escalating severity):-
a. incarcerating them behind barbed wire for years and running dead on their applications
b. pushing them off and letting them drown
c. shelling their boats
d. letting them land and wander in the desert to die
The Howard government got through 1, 2a (“the Pacific solution”) and 2b (SIEV X) and I’m not sure that little johnny would have had much compunction about 2c and 2d. If he thought he could get away with it I’m sure it was just a matter of time.
In any case 2c and 2d are the logical outcomes of the process you support.
Is it going to work? No. Everything up to 2b was a failure. 2b and beyond would be disastarous – there are only so many senior military officers for a minister to hide behind, you’ll run out of scapegoats pretty quick and then the country would be in real trouble.
The hordes of refugees I was referring are also logical outcomes – of treating Indonesia like a dangerous enemy who is not to be trusted or negotiated with, which is also one of your points.
In fact, the “hordes of refugees” argument is actually yours, a bad outcome just with a different cause.
Short version:- be careful of what you wish for Iain because you just might get it.
JM
I will explain why each of your “points” misrepresents my position
This is Not what I am saying at all, My position is that the UN is very flawed and that we should be prepared to question anything with the imprimatur of that organisation and not see it as some sort of holy writ which is beyond question.
My suggestion is consistent with David’s, namely that we should be discouraging boats full of illegal immigrants
As I have said, in this very thread in fact , those who arrive here should have their status promptly determined and if they are found to be economic migrants rather than “refugees” that they should be promptly repatriated which is the exact opposite of your claim here.
Where precisely do you claim I have advocated this? the closest that I have come is to suggest that if their boats are seaworthy and they have competent crew then (and only then) there is no ethical problem in turning them away from our territorial waters.
I defy you to find any instance when I have said this either here or at any other venue.
I defy you to find any instance when I have said this either here or at any other venue.
Look JM I think that there are still some parts of the state that are in drought, so please go and visit them because you have created enough men of straw here to feed a very large mob of hungry cattle and you have grossly misrepresented my position in the process.
Iain on the UN: “not see it as some sort of holy writ which is beyond question”
Conventions of the UN (eg the Refugees Convention) are international agreements that we have signed and enshrined (at least until Howard) in our law. Not quite holy writ, but still the law.
Iain: “we should be discouraging boats full of illegal immigrants”
And if they claim refugee status – which they are entitled to do under both international and Australian law, “discouragement” is a bit moot isn’t it?
Iain: ” those who arrive here should have their status promptly determined ”
Not quite what happened though is it? I think my description is more accurate and you are on record as supporting the Howard government’s actions and policies – implicitely in your posting here in fact.
Iain: “if their boats are seaworthy and they have competent crew”
The captain of the Tampa determined that it was not seaworthy as a passenger vessel yet he was not allowed to land at the nearest port.
Or are you now agreeing with me that he should have been allowed to continue to Australia? And that would have been the logical, humane and legal thing to do?
c & d are just logical consequences of your “discouragement” program – I haven’t accused you of calling for them, just unthinkingly supporting a policy direction where they are the ultimate and logical outcomes.
Just bringing a little reality to your musings Iain.
I find it amusing JM, of your criticism of Australia, Iain, and myself, at our views regarding this subject.
A few things, ultimately, that I wish to ask you, is :
I have placed this in a previous thread, and there it remains unanswered.
There are some 20 odd countries, between Australia and Sri Lanka, that could have possibly aided these “people” with food and supplies, to ultimately end up in our immigration zone. They have been fueled up, and escorted back into international waters, to continue their journey towards good ol land of milk and honey, i.e. us !
Questions to you finally are :
Where is your criticism of them for their inhuman acts of showing these “refugees” the door ?
Why aren’t they abiding by your precious UN charters, and being sanctioned with your wrath for it ?
No mention of the hideous trade of “people smugglers” at the port of origin ? Why weren’t they arrested in previous ports of call ? They are small craft, therefore, need to be refueled often.
This is a hideous business, and I for one am getting awfully tired of lefties, wearing their rose coloured glasses, saying that I am a racist, and that is all my fault.
These people know the rules. They must, as why else would they risk all to come illegally, if they hadn’t tried to emigrate here legally, and been rejected ? Why pay three plus times the price of an airfare, and risk it all on some Indonesian fishing boat ?
I know your answers will go along the line that, they are in our immigration zone now, so it is our problem, and that is a fair enough response, and my response to that is, why the hell should Australia be the benevolent fund for the entire Asian, southern hemispheric region of the planet ? Australia is broke. We are already in deficit, and heading further south. This is going to be an ever worsening more prolific problem in the next few years, as the Asian economies worsen, and the wars in the middle east continue to rage. Let’s face it, these people have fighting since the beginning of time, and that ain’t going to change any time soon.
What makes Australia the southern hemispheric angel of benevolence ? Or perhaps a better question should be :
Why the hell should we ? As Iain stated, they are not refugees, rather, economic migrants, looking for a way around the rules, they have probably just been rejected by.
David
We’ve been over this. Those boats come from Indonesia – West Timor – they haven’t been refueled “20 times” at all and they aren’t seaworthy for a trip of that distance (they’re barely seaworthy enough to it make to Ashmore). Stop confusing the issue.
My point is simple:-
1. However they got here is not the issue, they are here and we have obligations if only from the simple fact that they are here.
2. If, as they obviously have, have got through other countries on the way without being arrested then that is a different issue.
Either those other countries have intercepted those people at some point or they haven’t. If they did and simply sent them on then those countries failed to fulfil theirobligations, and we should encourage those countries (eg. Indonesia) to behave themselves. The Rudd government is doing that.
But I’d put my money on non-interception. A few months ago there was a container found on a truck in southern Thailand with about 100 people on board – 50 of them dead. They had come from Burma, which I think you’ll agree is a place of political and social persecution and a generator of refugees.
The reason why they were in the container is that the Thai’s adopt exactly the “send ‘em back at the point of a gun” policy you so admire (to the point of shooting them in some cases) For that reason it is dangerous for them to seek asylum in Thailand.
Would you have us adopt the same policy? One that exposes people to a choice between danger at home or danger at the border? To the point of shooting them (we’ve already tried letting them drown)? Because that’s the next step in your anti-refugee program.
You tough guys are going to have to face up to something. The world is a dangerous place and some places are so dangerous that people are willing to spend all their money and risk their necks to get out.
I don’t think that your proposal to expose the few of those who get here (as opposed to being stranded in a refugee camp somewhere) to further danger – outright threats in fact – in the hope of “discouraging” them is going to work
You’re going to have to escalate a long way before you exceed the dangers they’ve already faced so your Pavlovian “beat the dog until it is cowed” strategy is not going to work.
It is neither tough, nor realistic.
The tough option is for us to face up to the obligations imposed on us by agreements we have signed. The realistic option is for us to find the best way of doing that.
Sleight of hand that is hiding frankly murderous outcomes is not the way.
Your “point” about airfares is so puerile I don’t feel like bothering with it.
You are still disillusioned enough to think, that a couple of boats is going to be the extent of this ? Why can’t you wrap your head around the fact, that if successful, the flood gates will not just open, but be bloody trampled flat.
You talk about all this impending doom, or dangers that these people are allegedly in, but there is still no proof of that. Again I say, if they are legit refugees, sure let’s go, but they aren’t. That has yet to be ascertained, so enough with the emotive claptrap. The situation in these countries that you refer to, has been typical of them for not five minutes ? Why now ? I’ll bet some insidious ratbag over there has told these people, that our doors are open, in the hope to make a killing. (in more ways than one ?)
Letting them drown ? Are you referring to Howard’s “Tampa” fantasy beat up, to score political points ? Or are you referring to the allegation that the latest, simply, to escape the return trip, simply set fire to their own boat ?
Pulease ! Setting fire to their own boat, if proven, would be enough for me to hire a bus, and deposit them at the nearest international airport departure lounge ! No one doubts the “balls” it would take to complete such a step, but would win no points in my book.
Again, why is that all our fault ? They are in our waters ?
It is not confusing the issue at all. Whether they come from West Timor, or even Papua for crying out loud, they are still Indonesian boats, and it is your beloved Indonesia that is duck shoving the problem onto us. They are ones standing at the docks, waving them goodbye, as they point the boats towards us ? Our “friends” ? Yeah right. If they had a gun that would shoot straight…..
To keep this short and sweet……
“1. However they got here is not the issue, they are here and we have obligations if only from the simple fact that they are here.
2. If, as they obviously have, have got through other countries on the way without being arrested then that is a different issue.”
These are not different issues at all, rather, part of the main. If either had been sorted out in Indonesia, instead of them gutlessly passing the problem onto us, I would guarantee the problem of boat people from the that region, would disappear over night, and the insidious people smuggling trade(rs), would disappear back under the rocks they crawled out of.
David it would help if you were as familiar with the history of this as anyone who bothered to read the front page of newspapers in this country would be.
“Letting them drown ? Are you referring to Howard’s “Tampa” fantasy beat up, to score political points ? ”
No. I’m referring to the SEIV X where we did let them drown. I believe there was quite a high profile – ie. front page – inquiry into it.
As for the Tampa ordering the captain of a container vessel to put to sea with a few hundred people on board, no food, no facilities, and nowhere to shelter them other than the open deck counts in my view as “callous” or perhaps even “brutal”. The captain decided that his boat wasn’t seaworthy in such conditions and refused.
The Australian government (brainless s**h**ds that they were) then demanded that the owners and the Norwegian government order the captain to obey (to which they said, sensibly “No, the captain is in charge of his ship and he is responsible. What he says, goes”)
“but there is still no proof of that. [claims of persecution]”
There is. 95% of people who arrive here and claim asylum are found to be genuine and it is granted.
“Setting fire to their own boat, if proven, …”
I know. Along with many other underinformed people. That’s why Howard turned a leaky, unseaworthy, sinking boat into the mendacious, manipulative “children overboard” show.
“part of the main”
Bollocks. Suppose someone claims asylum at Sydney airport that”s only issue #1, not issue #2.
“… instead of them gutlessly passing the problem onto us,… ”
David I don’t think they are. They’re just incompetent. My earlier so-called rant was pointing out what could happen if they were actually doing that. My Thailand/Burma reference was to demonstrate that in fact those countries are not “waving them on” to us, but in fact adopt pretty much the illegal and near murderous policy you would have us use.
But can you tell me how you intend to intend to get Indonesia to live up to their obligations (grant asylum to genuine refegees, send others back, etc, etc)? Perhaps we need to talk to them? Like the government is currently doing.
I have two words for you, something that will send shivers up the Indonesian regime faster than a dose of swine flu
SANCTIONS !
That was only one, so will let the imagination run riot with the adjective ?