Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Curtin(s) for Brother Number One’s credibility and the magic pudding left

Curtin(s) for Brother Number One’s credibility and the magic pudding left

An asylum-seeker gives the thumbs down after his group was put on a bus to be taken to the airport on Christmas Island yesterday. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Australian

With the news that Brother Number One has decided to open up the Curtin airbase detention facility after it being mothballed for some years the feelings of betrayal from the extreme open doors left is palpable and they are likely to desert Brother Number One in droves over the issue . We have preferential voting so our dear brother is rather sanguine about this prospect. He knows that the vast majority of those votes will seep back to his candidates anyway. The real risk to his reelection lays in the more middle of the road voters believing that they have been lied to or that they have been taken for granted. I can’t help feeling that this act is just another nail in the coffin of the Rudd government. They have been guilty of that most terrible sin in governmental administration, wishful thinking. Brother Number One really must have believed that the changes that they have made would have had no effect on the number of unauthorized arrivals. His sin was compounded by the relentless denial of the facts up until now. With Christmas Island Bursting at the seams and an unwillingness to do the necessary ( forcibly repatriate failed asylum applicants promptly if they won’t go willingly) the reopening of facilities like Curtin was inevitable. I am willing to bet that Brother Number One is hoping that it will take enough time for the election to come and go before thee is any unrest from the detainees.

With this issue rattling around in my head I was surprised to get an email from Leon  Bertrand this morning. Like me Leon  has been rather concerned about the spin from the Rudd government on this issue and he wrote about it several times at his now archived blog. Although he is no longer an active blogger I am glad to report that he is as keen as ever to tale errant leftys to task when they sprout utter nonsense. Jeremy Sear is one such Lefty who seems very keen to vilify anyone who even dares to suggest that people are concerned that “Asylum seeking” is really  just a defacto immigration mode.

  • Jeremy // 16 April, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Anyone who thinks that is at the very least ignorant. If they seek to pontificate on a subject on which they’re ignorant, that’s moronic. And if they seek to do so in order to attack a certain class of people who stoke their fears because they’re not “like them”, then they’re racist.

    But I’m sure they’re lovely people otherwise.

Find reproduced after the fold the correspondence between  Leon Bertrand and my old sparing partner Jeremy Sear.  Now I have responded to Jeremy’s spray above  at the post in question and in an act of peevish dishonesty Jeremy has held my comment in moderation (screen shots here and here) for all of the weekend so I am hardly surprised that Leon is reluctant to play in Jezza’a sand pit. The debate below is  somewhat amusing

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Leon Bertrand  wrote:

Dear Jeremy,
I refer to your post titled ‘Ignore the right’s repulsive fear-mongering, this is what happens‘, in which you refer to a Getup ‘facts’ sheet and say that “for all but the most hardened, racist Bolt-readers, a discussion in which they learn the facts is usually enough to withdraw their support for treating these people so cruelly “.
I note that the ‘facts sheet’ contains the following:

The vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by air. Last year, of the 13,500

people granted asylum in Australia only 206 of those arriving without visas came by

boat; 2,291 came by plane – well over 90%.

7There is also data to suggest that people who arrive by boat are more likely to be

legitimate refugees. Of asylum claims made by people who arrive by aircraft, 55% are

rejected. Only 2-15% of claims made by people arriving by boat are denied
If only 206 boat people were granted asylum last year, and about 90% of boat people are granted asylum, we would expect total boat arrivals to be only about 230 per year.

I doubted this, so I did some quick research.

Those figures would seem to contradict a 2009 report from The Sunday Telegraph:

Experts say few Australians understand that the boat people represent just a small fraction of our refugee intake – and these asylum-seekers are unfairly vilified by “expedient” politicians.

Exact plane-people figures for 2009 are not yet available, but an Immigration Department spokesman said the figure was likely to have increased at a similar rate to that of boat arrivals, which grew from 161 to 1799 since last year, in response to increased pressures within the region, including the end of civil war in Sri Lanka, which has seen many ethnic Tamils fleeing persecution.

That’s 1799 boat people in 2008. We all know that the figures in 2009 are even greater. It would hence appear that your ‘facts sheet’ is seriously wrong. Yet it is on this basis that you have claimed that the vast majority of Australians with boat people concerns are completely ignorant of the true state of affairs.
Will you publish a retraction on your blog?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Jeremy wrote:

I’d believe Getup over a News Ltd rag.

If you don’t believe their figures, email them and ask for their source.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jeremy wrote:

And in the meantime, note that your source also concedes that the “boat people” numbers are miniscule in proportion to the asylum claims made by people coming by plane. Most AUstralians paranoid about the “boat people” problem are convinced it’s the other way around.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Leon Bertrand wrote:

Can I ask why you believe Getup to be more credible than News? Is it because Getup is left-wing and News is not?

Do you still seriously cling to the notion that there were only about 230 boat arrivals in Australia last year? If I was a religious person, I would admire your faith!

Sorry to shatter your faith, but Michael Keenan, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs has reported that “Since the Rudd Government’s changes in August 2008, 74 unauthorised boats have arrived in Australian waters, with 3,105 people on board.”

The idea that 230 boat people came to Australia last year seems highly unlikely, to say the least.

But wait – my source is from the Liberal Party! And since everything that non-lefties say is extremely suspect, I guess I’ve just self-pwned!

Priceless Jeremy. If only I still had a blog!

Still waiting for the correction on your blog…

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Jeremy wrote:

No, it’s because I’ve seen News caught out in shameless lies many times.

If you have a competing figure for the boat arrivals to GetUp, feel free to email it to them and get their response. I don’t know where they got their figures, but I don’t believe the Liberal Party source any more than News Ltd.

In any case, the point – that the boat arrivals are a tiny, tiny fraction of asylum seekers – is beyond dispute. Whether it’s 200 or 3000. The Liberals and News have been very effective in tricking Australians into thinking boat arrivals are a significant proportion of arrivals, when they are clearly not.

I’d be interested to hear GetUp’s response to your alternative figures, though, so feel free to send it to them.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Jeremy Sear wrote:

Pps why am I having this argument with you over email? The blog has a comment facility.


Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:55:34 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote


On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Jeremy Sear wrote:

Leon. My blog has a comment facility. Raise your concerns there.

You have not provided ABS figures contradicting GetUp. Nor have you once responded to the point. I’m not engaging with you further via email. Stop wasting my time.

on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:07:00 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote

Funny how I must quote from the ABS only, but for you Getup is OK. If you think only the ABS will do, why rely on Getup? Why not look up ABS yourself?

Some are more equal than others I suppose.

Meanwhile Scott Morrison confirms that it was 217 a month last year. That’s almost how many you believe(d) were turning up in a year!:

“Last year we had 61 boats arrive and we had, on average, about 217 people turning up a month”
I think it’s time you stopped being in denial and admitted that you and Getup are dead wrong.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Jeremy Sear wrote:

It’s time you stopped ignoring the central point.

Ps Scott Morrison is a shameless liar. We’ve all heard his bullshit “immigration” figures that include visitors.

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:52:33 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote

On what basis is Morrison a liar? Your ABS statistics please?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Sear wrote:

Leon. If you want to debate this (and clearly you’re determined to disingenuously ignore the point I’ve repeated to you several times), comment on the post. Someone else will go and find the figures for you, I’m sure. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to any more of your asinine foolishness personally. Further emails will be ignored.

on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:56:34 +1000  Leon Bertrand wrote

Jeremy,

I’m not registered or signed in to comment on your blog.

You keep referring to “the main point”. But the only point in this conversation is the fact that yourself and Getup clearly have your facts wrong when it comes to the number of boat people who arrived in Australia in 2009. I will not comment on any other point because that is the only point.

Pure Poison is allegedly devoted to exposing “intellectual dishonesty”. Why do its authors then commit the very crime they are so devoted to exposing and condemning?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Jeremy Sear wrote #
Then register, dear liza.


On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:03 PM Jeremy Sear wrote

No, it wouldn’t. If I’m going to bother responding to your idiocy, it can be in public*

*my bold to emphasis that Sear does not consider this debate has to be considered private. (Iain)

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
Leon. Are you incapable of reading? I said, if you want to debate this with me, comment on the blog. My email is not the forum for this. I’m not going to waste time responding to each of your asinine non-points when there’s zero chance of you changing your mind no matter how wrong you are. I will argue the toss with you on the blog where my responses will have a chance of making a difference to someone whose mind isn’t completely made up.

DO NOT EMAIL ME ABOUT THIS ANY MORE. One more email from you that should be a blog comment and I’m adding your email address to the spam filter.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Leon Bertrand  wrote:

Jeremy,
I think you are being rather silly here.
Keri CC’d to you her email to me. I thought I’d be nice enough to keep in you in the loop by CCing you when I replied.
Did you object to Keri CC’ing you? Did you tell her she should comment on your blog instead? Didn’t think so.

Stop being so sensitive and defensive! Seriously.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Jeremy wrote:
It’s up to Keri whether she wants to engage with you further on email, but you’ve wasted enough of my time.

I will debate with you in public, on the blog. That’s it. Your points are stupid, but there’s no point wasting any more time responding to you where it’ll do no good to anyone.

You’re deliberately wasting my time. You haven’t once responded to the critical issue – that “boat people” are a small proportion of asylum seekers and an even smaller proportion of immigrants, and it’s shamelessly dishonest rightwingers who beat the story up to mislead Australians into thinking the reverse. You know that’s true, which is why you keep ignoring me pointing it out.

But enough. If Keri wants to debate you on email, she can waste her time doing that – I’ve had enough. I’ll debate you on the blog and only on the blog.


Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:29:12 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote

fuck you’re weak.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Jeremy Sear  wrote:
Lol. I’m happy to have this discussion in public. You’re embarrassed to do so. We all know why.


Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:37:36 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote

Be careful what you wish for Jeremy. This may still be made public. Unlike you, I am not embarassed by anything said in these emails.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Sear  wrote:
I do not give you permission to publish my private emails. I will not correspond further with you. Debates are for blogs.

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:46:40 +1000Leon Bertrand wrote

Lol. I’m happy to have this discussion in public. You’re embarrassed to do so. We all know why.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Sear  wrote:
Publishing private email correspondence is different from having an open debate. I’m happy to debate you in public. Private emails are not for public discussion.

What part of this simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp?

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:56:20 +1000 Leon Bertrand wrote

Sorry Jeremy, but there was nothing private about what you disclosed to me by email. It was a debate, exactly of the kind which would occur in public. There were no confidences you shared with me, no secrets divulged, no private information disclosed.

To repeat: ” I’m happy to have this discussion in public. You’re embarrassed to do so. We all know why”.

Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:04 AM Jeremy Sear wrote

I will not correspond with you again. Absolutely contemptible. Do not send a reply email.

The issues of population, immigration and how to address those who come here uninvited are all intertwined and they all have to do with the sort of future that we will make in this country. Extreme lefties like Jeremy Sear  don’t even want to consider the matters with any honesty which, as Leon points out, is supposed to be the key part of the Pure Poison mission statement and should inform all of his writing if he is to be consistent.

Now as much as I think that Clive Hamilton is a total wanker I found his latest piece in the Fairfax press an interesting contrast to our learned friend what he says about the number of people that we have in this country being inextricably liked to the standard of living that future Australians can expect. is so obvious and easy to agree with. If you put aside the religious aspect of Hamilton’s argument (we are all going to fry because of “global warming” !!!!) . Sear has a magic pudding approach to the population and migration issue. Quite simply he thinks that the possibility for growth in this country is endless so he thinks that we should allow any who want to come here to stay.  The difference is that Hamilton has thought about the long term consequences of endless growth and Sear hasn’t. On this occasion I find that I have some common ground with Hamilton  because like him I think that endless growth is unsustainable and if that means that we should be less generous to the  mendicants who come knocking at our collective doors then so be it.

Cheers Comrades

😉

#The email conversion has been updated to include the correspondence that occurred after the publication of this post  and to include an email that was inadvertently  left out when I transcribed them into this post I think that I have got it right now But if either  writer wants to point out any errors of transcription I will happily make any necessary corrections

16 Comments

  1. Leon Bertrand says:

    The most amusing part is that around the same time you wrote this post, Jeremy emailed me and said “I’m happy to have this discussion in public. You’re embarrassed to do so. We all know why.”.

    Classic!

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Classic indeed Leon !

  3. Leon Bertrand says:

    It gets better. Jeremy then writes:

    “I do not give you permission to publish my private emails. I will not correspond further with you. Debates are for blogs.”

    So I then use his own reply against him:

    “Lol. I’m happy to have this discussion in public. You’re embarrassed to do so. We all know why.”.

    Jeremy = uber pwned.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    The thing is you are not publishing the correspondence Leon, I am and although I have agreed not to publish any correspondence between Jeremy and myself correspondence between him and a third party (yourself) is obviously not covered by such and agreement.
    Perhaps we should call this “pudding-gate”
    😆

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    My head hurts.

    Iain, this tedious debate over how many boat people have arrived and/or have been admitted into Australia is rather pointless. Again, I think you make the invalid connection between boat arrivals and population growth.

  6. Jeremy says:

    LOL. Leon repeatedly refuses to have the discussion on the blog where his fatuous non-arguments can be contradicted easily by those with more patience for idiocy than me, he repeatedly ignores the critical issue (that it is a fact that the proportion of boat people is a small fraction of overall refugees let alone immigrants, but that shameless rightwingers deliberately mislead the ignorant into believing the opposite), and then he sends this personal correspondence to Iain for him to publish excerpts as if they were the entire thing, as if I was seriously having a debate with this fool. I repeatedly told him I wasn’t having a debate over email, so what precisely this post proves – other than that Iain and Leon are stubborn little trolls who publish personal correspondence – I have no idea.

    Keri, who has more patience than me with this moron, emailed Leon the figures, which completely decimated his stupid non-argument, but I note he doesn’t repeat that part.

    Iain, your post wasn’t approved because it was stupid personal abuse and contributed nothing to the discussion. Since you’ve screen-grabbed it, your reader can check for himself.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy

    LOL. Leon repeatedly refuses to have the discussion on the blog where his fatuous non-arguments can be contradicted easily by those with more patience for idiocy than me, he repeatedly ignores the critical issue (that it is a fact that the proportion of boat people is a small fraction of overall refugees let alone immigrants, but that shameless rightwingers deliberately mislead the ignorant into believing the opposite),

    Given the way that you treat those of us who disagree with you Jeremy I find Leon’s reluctance to comment at your blog entirely understandable. that said you were more than happy to continue the dialogue with Leon and to answer his questions. The issue is not so much about the numbers seeking asylum as it is about the way that our government has characterized the flood of boats since it changed the ground rules and the way it has denied for two years that it is responsible.

    and then he sends this personal correspondence to Iain for him to publish excerpts as if they were the entire thing, as if I was seriously having a debate with this fool.

    Are you claiming that the correspondence I quote is incomplete? It looks very much like a debate, to me and one which you were losing> Leon has sent me some correspondence that you send after this post was published which I am happy to add to the post if you like

    I repeatedly told him I wasn’t having a debate over email, so what precisely this post proves – other than that Iain and Leon are stubborn little trolls who publish personal correspondence – I have no idea.

    You made no disclaimers while you were corresponding to Leon and as the part that I embolden in the post shows you even opine that Leon is afraid to discuss the issue in public, so it stands to reason that when you were writing to Leon you were indifferent to where your words would finally end up.

    Keri, who has more patience than me with this moron, emailed Leon the figures, which completely decimated his stupid non-argument, but I note he doesn’t repeat that part.

    Well then I am sure that Leon will forward them on to me when he gets the time 😉 and I will put them up .

    Iain, your post wasn’t approved because it was stupid personal abuse and contributed nothing to the discussion. Since you’ve screen-grabbed it, your reader can check for himself.

    This is ludicrous coming from you, who wrote an abusive retort to my initial comment 🙄

    Ray

    I know that you are bored with the topic but I don’t control where the muse inspires me to go.

  8. Leon Bertrand says:

    Nice work Iain.

    I note that Jeremy for the umpteenth time thinks that I have made a fool of myself because I didn’t want to address “the critical issue”, ie: what Jeremy wanted to talk about.

    But my first email to Jeremy clearly set out what I took issue with:

    ” It would hence appear that your ‘facts sheet’ is seriously wrong. Yet it is on this basis that you have claimed that the vast majority of Australians with boat people concerns are completely ignorant of the true state of affairs.
    Will you publish a retraction on your blog”

    My email questioned the accuracy of a part of the fact sheet (Boat people arrivals in 2009). Jeremy wanted to change the subject, and I wouldn’t let him distract me. He also tried to talk about getting me to start the debate again on his blog, as though I have hours to spend going over old debates. Finally, he would insult me and ask me to stop emailing him.

    Jeremy, trying to change the subject when your opponent doesn’t want to does not reduce your opponent’s credibility. It reduces yours.

  9. Jason says:

    Your “muse”. How droll, Iain. You are an adult, at least in a legal sense, and you should be capable of controlling what you post about and when. What you don’t seem to be so on top of, after so many years, is your obsession with Jeremy Sear.

    Anyway, I’ll leave you, Jeremy and Leon to sort out the details of who said what. I’m just dropping in to point out that, not content with posting two photographs you trawled the web for in the last week or so, you’ve now chosen to publish correspondence that you weren’t a party to. A low act, and another well-established practice of yours you might want to think carefully about.

  10. Damian says:

    “Yes, your honourness, but my muse told me to stalk people and publish their photos and correspondence without their permission.”

  11. JM says:

    Iain, Leon

    I think Jeremy is right.

    Why the hell should he bother responding to your selective presentation of this argument? Anyone can cherry pick.

    And misrepresentation also happens unless we can see the whole debate.

    Man up guys, or aren’t you big enough to back your own arguments?

  12. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    As i said before there are other emails, exchanged after the publication of this blog but apart from that the conversation is precisely as it it happened. Jeremy has wheeled out the “excerpt” claim to muddy the waters .
    Damian
    the correspondence is as much Leon’s as it is Jeremy’s and Leon gave me permission to publish it. Jeremy’s side of the conversation was in no sense protected by any disclaimers
    Jason

    Your “muse”. How droll, Iain. You are an adult, at least in a legal sense, and you should be capable of controlling what you post about and when. What you don’t seem to be so on top of, after so many years, is your obsession with Jeremy Sear.

    I write as events direct me Jason It sis as simple as that .

    Anyway, I’ll leave you, Jeremy and Leon to sort out the details of who said what. I’m just dropping in to point out that, not content with posting two photographs you trawled the web for in the last week or so, you’ve now chosen to publish correspondence that you weren’t a party to. A low act, and another well-established practice of yours you might want to think carefully about.

    See my response to Damian Doyle about the correspondence as for the photos is horses for courses really as my image and photos have been used by the old crew on many occasions without my permission and while they maintain a hate page focused on moi I see no reason to be generous to them, but I have never seen you pontificate on that .

  13. Len says:

    What was the post about again ?

  14. Iain Hall says:

    The way that minions of the far left are sitting in that north African river when it comes to the issue of asylum seekers….

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for the link Jeremy I was going to add it to the post but I have been too busy trying to get Keri’s Guest post right 😉

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: