While I’m not naive enough to think, as some people are dim enough to try to counter-argue, that everyone who applies for asylum here should be granted it, to suggest we, by sheer dumb luck, deserve life freedom and security above those unfortunate enough to be fleeing persecution is the kind of staggering prejudice and arrogance that leads nations down very dark paths indeed. Prejudice, whether in the form of racism or economic elitism or religious zealotry is the trait Australians should be looking to avoid, but unfortunately we’ve allowed it to become the enemy from within. You can’t send it offshore in a lifeboat when it’s embedded in your soul like a thorn.
Well said; very well said indeed. But…
SOME of the people who come here in boats are fleeing genuine persecution. But as Marga and others have pointed out, what at least some of these unfortunate people are fleeing from is political and economic stagnation in their countries of origin. And so I ask this simple question: why should the present population of Australia have to pay for that?
Because pay we will. If the borders are thrown wide open (and that is the inescapable political corollary of all the ‘refugee advocacy’ we see here) then we will pay: in overpopulation, in environmental degradation and the rest of it.
As far as bettering the lot of refugees from the Islamic world, Australian dollars would be far better spent on projects that help break the grip of the theocrats in their countries of origin: like aid with family planning. (Do I hear Tony Abbott and his mate Pell having seizures, convulsions and paroxysms stage right? Or should that be stage far right?)
I think of the refugee situation as analogous to the drama that occurred in mid-Atlantic when the Titanic went down near midnight on April 14, 1912.
The analogy of the Titanic is all the refugees and others’ (mainly Islamic) countries of origin. The analogy of the lifeboats is the sought-after destinations like Australia, NZ, the US, Canada and the countries of Western Europe. (No comparative number to that of the people claiming refugee status here, note, are seeking anything but temporary ‘asylum’ in Eastern Europe, the Far East, South America or Africa.)
On the Titanic: the inquiries in the aftermath of the sinking ” …reached broadly similar conclusions: the regulations on the number of lifeboats that ships had to carry were out of date and inadequate; Captain Smith had failed to take proper heed of ice warnings; the lifeboats had not been properly filled or crewed; and the collision was the direct result of steaming into a danger area at too high a speed….”
But the fact is that the (mainly Islamic) countries of origin which are the analogy of the Titanic are not sinking. On the contrary, their Titanic has been taken over by religious fundamentalist pirates. The refugees could all save themselves if they would just convert to the variety of Islam that the majority of the pirates belong to, and accept whatever economic subservience follows from that.
But, most understandably, they do not want to.
Trouble is, the more refugees, and pseudo-refugees of one kind or another, that make it into the lifeboats, the more who want to abandon ship and hope for a place in one of those same lifeboats. Those of us in the lifeboats face the genuine moral dilemma of either pulling all comers out of the water, and going down with the overcrowded lifeboat, or leaving them to drown. But there will always be people like you, Sooz, with us in the lifeboat, and claiming the moral high-and-dry ground. You lot will continue to urge us to admit all comers. That is, until it dawns on even you that this is not sustainable. Not even in the short term.
You call us ‘racists’. I do not believe that you have even the vaguest idea of the meaning of the word.
You, on the other hand, in your moral purity, will protest mightily here on NM as Abbott and Morrison to send boats back to Indonesia. You will protest without having for one instant to face the consequences of the political folly implied by what you demand. Because only a pathetic minority of Australians are in favour of open borders; because only such a pathetic minority are incapable of foreseeing the real consequences of what they advocate.
Cover yourself in righteousness as much as you like, Sooz. You know damn well that the historic experience of Australia is against open borders, and for damn good reasons, and likewise the majority of her people. But you will always be OK and never have to face any sad realities. You can have it both ways: the apparent moral superiority of being in favour of open borders, and the comfort of knowing that the policies you advocate will never be adopted, and that the lifeboat you are in will stay afloat.
Except that I do not think that you pontificate to the rest of us from the moral high ground. You have found the easy way out. You preach at the rest of us from the middle of a moral swamp
I hope that the anonymous author sees this post as it is intended, as a salute to an argument well put about an issue that matters.
I dips me lid Comrade O. Puhleez
(by Ray Dixon – an equal opprortunity holiday accommodation provider)
“We don’t want sodomy in our home. That’s not the same thing as saying we are anti-gay,”
On the surface this sounds like straight-out discrimination against same-sex couples (being lesbians, in this case).
But I smell a bit of a set-up:
Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.
… Lesbian couple Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, decided not to stay at the lodge on May 7 after being told they could only have a room with single beds.
They had booked online a room with a king-sized bed but Mrs Ruskin said that when the couple arrived they were told the lodge’s policy was for same-sex couples to be put into a room with two king-single beds.
The engaged couple decided not to stay but could not find other accommodation until they got to Waipu.
Mrs Ruskin said she was sorry for the couple’s inconvenience but was standing firm on her morals and the sanctity of her home.
The Ruskins live in the bed and breakfast-style lodge, where guests share lounge, kitchen and living areas.
“It’s our home – it’s not a motel.”
The lesbians have since filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission claiming discrimination due to their sexual orientation but the owners claim they have a legal right (and indeed a precedent) to say who will share their residential accommodation:
She said that in 2010 a gay couple also complained to the commission after being asked to sleep apart, but that complaint was withdrawn when the exception for shared accommodation came to light.
Hmm, I’m starting to wonder if this incident was a case of gay activists deliberately targeting the Pilgrim Planet in a sort-of payback or even a re-test of the exemption, now that gay marriage has been legalised in New Zealand.
I wonder why they chose this place, which already has ‘form’ for rejecting gay couples, and which also states right upfront on its website’s home page that they, err, cater to only certain people:
Pilgrim Planet: B&B guesthouse in central Whangarei, modern accommodation with old fashioned values*
*Our nation’s moral code has been based on generally accepted values which have guided legislation. Essentially parliament’s concern is matters legal and the peoples’ concern is matters moral. When these line up we have peace and harmony but when politicians legislate against morality, a disconnect occurs. Unjust laws need to be questioned for if we fail to do this we will become corrupted by the law instead of edified and protected by it. You are welcome to stay in our home, whatever your beliefs, so long as you respect and understand ours.
And just in case the lesbian couple missed that bit when they booked online, they surely must have seen this on the bookings page:
Pilgrim Planet – modern accommodation with old fashioned values! …….. We reserve the right to change any rooms that have been booked on-line at our discretion.
I’m in the accommodation business too, but I wouldn’t go imposing any ‘moral values’ on our guests. We’ve had gays & lesbians stay here at GG and it doesn’t bother us in the slightest. All we ask is that guests don’t disturb others and don’t leave the place in a mess. Quite frankly (and I don’t mean to stereotype here), our homosexual guests are generally much tidier than most others, especially those guests with little kids. As for what they do in the beds, well our linen is hired in for each stay so we don’t have to wash it anyway!
Then again, our units are completely separate and fully self-contained, whereas the Pilgrim Planet is actually an oversized house that merely lets out bedrooms and allows its guests to share most of the house, it seems. It’s not the sort of accommodation I’d choose to supply – to anyone – because the only people I like sleeping in my house are my own direct family. Yeah, we even put our relatives in the units when they visit (at no charge of course!)
I sort of think the Ruskins, if homosexuality offends them so much, are simply in the wrong business. But I also think the lesbian couple would (or should) have known in advance that they would be discriminated against – I mean, just the name Pilgrim Planet should have been a dead giveaway that mein host was a little bit on the churchie side, don’t you think?
Anyway … they’re just bloody Kiwis, who cares?
I think I might ban all New Zealanders from GG full stop – I wonder if that’s discrimination?
(by SockPuppet – your insitive Melbourne blogger and social commenter)
I have some questions for the hotlooking chick holding up the “pussy” sign at Yesterdays ‘marriage equality’ rally in Melbourne:
1. If you are getting so much “pussy” why do you want to get married to just one woman? You will get a lot less pussy that way.
2. If you are lesbian why are you standing so close to what looks more like a bloke in the black Tshirt?
3. If the ‘bloke’ in the black T shirt is female is she your lesbian lover?
4. If you answer yes to question 3 Why are you wasting yourself on her?
5. Is that bald bloke behind you picking his nose your Dad or your stalker? He looks like one.
6. Would you be interested in a threesome with Laura and me?
And for Gig Guy – see what I mean about Victoria now? It is all action here buddy, you would not see this in western muslim Sydney would you?
(by Ray Dixon)
“You’ve got some big testicles to pull that off, bro” (Charles Ramsey expressing surprise that his next-door neighbour was secretly keeping 3 women hostage)
I don’t know if there’s a reward for the rescue of the three women who had been held captive for 10 years in a Cleveland Ohio house but, if so, it just has to go to this bloke, next-door-neighbour Charles Ramsey.
And not just because Ramsey’s the one who answered the distressed calls of Amanda Berry and got her out of the house leading to a 911 call that then led to the rescue of the other two (and subsequent arrest of the owner and his two brothers), but also – and mainly – for this incredible and hilarious impromptu interview he gave to a TV journo soon after.
Make sure you watch it – it really picks up half way through. Ramsey’s a natural, almost a comedian. And, in my sincere opinion, he IS a true hero and deserves $1 million or more for what he’s done.
(by Ray Dixon)
Just to ‘Brighten’ up the day (and because I don’t think Iain gets a real Autumn up there in Queensland), here are some photos I took yesterday around our property, Grevillea Gardens holiday accommodation in Bright (Vic) .
It might be due to the milder weather we’ve had but, for some reason, the Autumn colours have come out much later this year – and spectacularly so. It’s been great for business too with plenty of tourists coming up to see why Bright is regarded as Australia’s most beautiful inland town.
Okay, this is a shameless plug (I hope Iain doesn’t mind), so I might as well go the whole hog and mention that the units are also for individual sale. We’ve sold three, so far.
Here are some more pics- click on images to enlarge: (more…)