Post #7,407
8/31/01 11:24:59 PM
|
I wondered how people in here would come down on it...
not be confused with the legal aspects that they are attempting to enter Australia illegally, Actually, I don't see it that way.They are *not* (currently) trying to enter "illegally". They were in a sinking boat, another rendered assistance, and now they're being left there to rot. The immigration issue is another point entirely. Want to deny them immigration? Fine, that's your perogative.If the Tampa hadn't picked them up, we would have another 400+ illegal aliens to do something with. They were definitely coming to Australian soil. We deny lots of people entry before they get here. We've even turned whole boatloads away before. Why not this lot? But it would be *humane* to let them get off the damn boat and see doctors, and get food and water. In some of the big influxes, the US has set up tent cities while they processed (and rejected lots) such aliens. (The Haitian ones, most recently) I have a problem with leaving people out there to rot.We're not leaving them out there to rot. We're giving them food, water and medical aid. What we're not doing is letting them land. If the owner of the ship wants to complain about us turning their cargo ship into a passenger ship, I'm sure we will have great delight in pointing this out. I said before not to confuse the legal and humane issues. The other point is that it costs us anything from 5 times upwards to process them on our shore as to reject them before they get here. This is the main reason we told them to get lost from the get go. I would guess the cost is probably starting to mount, though, but other factors are now in play. What does Norway have to do with anything?It's a Norwegian ship. They are a victim of circumstance. If it was a Dutch ship, or a Brazillian ship, or whatever, we'd have a different country involved. It was just their boat, who went to the aid of sinking, and about to die, people, and for their humanity, are "stuck" with them while Australia points guns at them and says "Yer problem now, mate, you picked 'em up".*That's* what I have a problem with. Not accepting them as immigrants, that's your business. But keeping them on a massively overcrowded boat, designed for ~30 to live on?The captain was told not to enter Australian waters. He had no reason to enter Australian waters - he claimed the refugees threatened to jump overboard again if he did not. Note, too, the duplicity of Indonesia. The failing boat they were picked up from was indisputably Indonesian. The Tampa's next port of call was in Indonesia. We know these illegal aliens are setting out from Indonesia. Yet Indonesia refuses to discuss the matter with Australia, and has put warships out to prevent the Tampa from docking. Why are we the big ogre? Indonesia must have some responsibility here and they are refusing all of it. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #7,410
8/31/01 11:41:28 PM
|
Re: I wondered how people in here would come down on it...
If the Tampa hadn't picked them up, we would have another 400+ illegal aliens to do something with. They were definitely coming to Australian soil.
Perhaps I was confused, then. I was under the impression they sank going from somewhere to Indonesia.
We deny lots of people entry before they get here. We've even turned whole boatloads away before. Why not this lot?
We're not leaving them out there to rot. We're giving them food, water and medical aid.
That's.. leaving them out there to rot. The medical care is arguable, but I don't know that its lacking.
If the owner of the ship wants to complain about us turning their cargo ship into a passenger ship, I'm sure we will have great delight in pointing this out.
So in other words, after being (directed to be) a Good Samaritan, its not Your Problem. Well, sometimes things *become* a problem.
It's a Norwegian ship. They are a victim of circumstance. If it was a Dutch ship, or a Brazillian ship, or whatever, we'd have a different country involved.
I still don't see where that has anything to do with Norway, proper, unless you're saying they should sail 1/2 way around the world with people lashed to the deck and deliver them to Norway. Norway's not involved in this.
The captain was told not to enter Australian waters. He had no reason to enter Australian waters - he claimed the refugees threatened to jump overboard again if he did not.
You're skipping, slightly. AU directed him to a sinking ship, with far more people than he can expect to deal with. Now that he's in that situation, nobody will assist *him*.
Note, too, the duplicity of Indonesia. The failing boat they were picked up from was indisputably Indonesian. The Tampa's next port of call was in Indonesia.
I'll have to see what I can find out about the location of the sinking. So it was closer to Indonesia than Australia?
Yet Indonesia refuses to discuss the matter with Australia, and has put warships out to prevent the Tampa from docking. Why are we the big ogre? Indonesia must have some responsibility here and they are refusing all of it.
I can agree with that they should also be willing to take some - but right *now* the boat is off the AU shore.
I'd also comment on how the captain probably expected to get a more civilized, humanitarian response from Australia, rather than Indonesia, for the problem that HE now has.
So the next time a boat is sinking off the AU coast, and all the passing ships are having radio problems... what do you say to them, that they are monsters?
Addison
|
Post #7,415
9/1/01 12:14:48 AM
|
Think of it as "we want to set our own immigration policy."
Perhaps I was confused, then. I was under the impression they sank going from somewhere to Indonesia.Nah. Going from there to here. We're not leaving them out there to rot. We're giving them food, water and medical aid. That's.. leaving them out there to rot. The medical care is arguable, but I don't know that its lacking.If we told Willenius Wilhemson that they were their responsibility, that would be "leaving them there to rot". If the owner of the ship wants to complain about us turning their cargo ship into a passenger ship, I'm sure we will have great delight in pointing this out. So in other words, after being (directed to be) a Good Samaritan, its not Your Problem. Well, sometimes things *become* a problem.And this is how we're handling this one. I still don't see where that has anything to do with Norway, proper, unless you're saying they should sail 1/2 way around the world with people lashed to the deck and deliver them to Norway. Norway's not involved in this.I think Norway is only really involved because it's being treated as an issue of soveriegnty and the ship is registered as a Norwegian vessel. The captain was told not to enter Australian waters. He had no reason to enter Australian waters - he claimed the refugees threatened to jump overboard again if he did not. You're skipping, slightly. AU directed him to a sinking ship, with far more people than he can expect to deal with. Now that he's in that situation, nobody will assist *him*.I shall have to find out about whether we really directed him to pick them up. In all likelihood, we probably expected him to take them to Indonesia, where he was going anyway. I'll have to see what I can find out about the location of the sinking. So it was closer to Indonesia than Australia?I don't know. Possibly. It was definitely in International waters. Yet Indonesia refuses to discuss the matter with Australia, and has put warships out to prevent the Tampa from docking. Why are we the big ogre? Indonesia must have some responsibility here and they are refusing all of it. I can agree with that they should also be willing to take some - but right *now* the boat is off the AU shore.... after we told the captain not to come! :-) What should we do now? Arrest him for disobeying? Could be interesting... I'd also comment on how the captain probably expected to get a more civilized, humanitarian response from Australia, rather than Indonesia, for the problem that HE now has.That's why I don't understand why we aren't involving the country these people are coming from. So the next time a boat is sinking off the AU coast, and all the passing ships are having radio problems... what do you say to them, that they are monsters?I can't answer that. Certainly it creates a "cry wolf" situation. Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #7,418
9/1/01 12:26:11 AM
|
"snarky" so does Israel (sorry couldnt resist)
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #7,416
9/1/01 12:18:40 AM
|
simple yer turn in the barrel
wasnt it until recent that immigrants non white were totally banned until mid 60's? correct of wrong. Hoi, where is the cat in all of this! Rainbow indeed , gay ok as long as yer white!
not true of you or the cat but an easy label to place, without knowledge we are left with impressions, clue us in and dont mind the gleeful jabbing it is a refresher to find someone else in the barrel. Gets gummy after a while when you are the only one.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #7,426
9/1/01 2:47:56 AM
|
Hmm. Some links.
We've seen excerpts from international news on our local stuff about how they are presenting the situation. It hasn't been favourable, unsurprisingly, but it appears few facts are wrong. I've also seen an interview with a Norwegian journalist who showed strong signs of an open mind.
Channel Seven's news site is hard to search, but I found [link|http://i7news.com.au/News/FrameSet/0,,PDI7140_DPD7153,00.html|Refugees denied access] from last Monday (27 Aug) and [link|http://i7news.com.au/News/FrameSet/0,,PDI7140_DPD7153,00.html|Record boatload hits Aussie shores] from the a day or so before.
Ah, the Sydney Morning Herald has [link|http://www.smh.com.au/news/specials/natl/tampa/index.html|a good summary] of the situation. And The Australian has [link|http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5746,ausfeedback%5E%5ETEXT,00.html|a feedback page] with some wide-ranging comments, though it pains me to see so many people confusing the legal and humane issues.
More recently, the ABC posted [link|http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s355372.htm|Indonesia's position] which mentions the fact that Indonesia has some responsibilty for the water in which they were picked up and that the Tampa was closest to an Indonesian port when it did pick them up; plus a story about [link|http://www.abc.net.au/am/s354940.htm|Smuggling rings in Indonesia].
I also found [link|http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/2000-01/01cib08.htm|Detention of boat-people], a paper from the Parlimentary library that outlines the overall situation WRT rising numbers of illegal immigrants, the whys and wherefors of detention and comparisons to other countries. This is quite a good paper, actually. It even suggests the UN treaty may need revising.
The ABC currently has [link|http://www2b.abc.net.au/news/forum/forum30/|a rather fiery forum] going on it.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #7,437
9/1/01 4:12:14 AM
|
Coincidentally, the first quote -
Who can forget the rejection by the US
government of the ship carrying hundreds
of refugees from Hitler's Germany in 1939.
Those people were eventually returned to
Germany and sent to Auschwitz [spell corrected] to a certain
death. Does Australia want these refugees
to meet the same fate [sp] by sending them
back to the hell holes of Afganistan?? seems to match my initial take (sans much known detail, of course) - just.. deja vu. Anyway, thanks for the assorted local takes. It's a problem which all the rich countries face increasingly, as population continues upwards and wealth distribution remains generally, in the world - medieval. And while the various religions (via caste - still rampant in India) and other peculiarities, induce aberrant behavior towards all the other millions with their variants on the theme. Medieval too? or a permanent species derangement? It's clear that in the end, no matter how assiduously the 'enlightened' groups preach of human rights and reverence for life - that 'reverence' extends to the local clan only somewhat, and much less - to all the others. We'll all watch the rhetoric play out; see what effect world opinion and image - affect the outcome. (Can't set any precedents for compassion of course; it might attract more tests of its limits.) Besides, neither Oz nor US could erase the root causes for there being always: refugees from oppressive homo-sap regimes. (And we each have our own local Billys n'Ballys seeking to maintain the local wealth distribution status quo) End Act 1 Scene 2 A.
|
Post #7,535
9/3/01 12:05:45 AM
|
Like I said at the outset...
... it's a complex problem that will not yield to a simple solution.
Regarding the oppressive regimes in coutries like Afghanistan... I think the UN is going about it's role the wrong way. Currently, AFAIK, membership is conditional, and countries can and do leave the UN for whatever reason. The problem with that is that it then becomes a type of club. Why is this a problem? Because it wants to enforce good behaviour in all countries the world over.
A solution would be to deny no-one membership of the UN, or, to put it another way, abolish membership rules. All nations in - no exceptions. This would make UN membership a responsibility, not a privilege. It would make it easier, then, for the UN to criticise countries that ignore the global ramifications of their decisions and actions. Like Afghanistan.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
