Prev
Next

Facing terror, violence and fear? Join the queue

Senthorun Raj

by Senthorun Raj

03 Sep 05:50am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: High Court, Human Rights, Malaysia, Refugees

116 comments

Should we ban the live export of asylum seekers?

Not everyone on this boat has the same rights. Photo: Stephen Cooper.

In a compelling majority, the High Court seemed to think so, issuing a permanent injunction against the Commonwealth Government, barring them from pursuing the current proposal to trade asylum seekers with Malaysia.

Despite numerous changes to the Migration Act over the decade to expand administrative power, the Act could not be used to justify the transaction of asylum seekers as if they were export goods.

In particular, the High Court emphasised that Malaysia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, nor does it have a domestic statutory framework that recognises refugees.

While the High Court expressed no opinion on the merit of Malaysia’s human rights standards, Amnesty International reported last year that the absence of legal protection is supplemented with the practice of caning and congestion in Malaysian immigration detention facilities.

While the decision has drawn considerable praise from a range of refugee advocates, this decision has particular importance for the asylum seekers who flee persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Malaysia still criminalises homosexuality. Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) asylum seekers flee persecution in Malaysia and seek refuge in Australia.

In 2008, a transgender woman from Malaysia was granted refugee status in Australia on the basis that being unable to change her identity documentation and access employment would result in her inability to subsist.

With cases like this in mind, it seems absurd that LGBTI asylum seekers could have been potentially returned to the country from which they flee.

Even if we ignore the humanitarian or compassionate undertones, economic rationale gestures to a cheaper and more efficient alternative: processing asylum seekers onshore in the community, rather than in detention facilities.

UNHCR identifies the potential cost savings from the switch can range from $333 to $117 per asylum seeker, per day.

Punitive border protection measures do not address the underlying causes of persecution that force individuals to flee and seek asylum. Contrary to popular opinion, asylum seekers do not “google” detention or immigration policies, before getting on a boat to escape torture or abuse.

In numerical terms, it is also worth mentioning that over 85 percent of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be genuine refugees. In comparison, most asylum seekers arrive by plane, and approximately 20 percent are granted asylum.

If this is the case, then surely our concern for border protection should be focused on the skies, rather than the seas?

Many of us feel troubled by the idea of boat arrivals being “queue jumpers”. However, the mythic “queue” that people demand asylum seekers wait in does not exist.

It is legal to seek asylum, even by boat. If we demanded that asylum seekers “wait” in resettlement camp (which a specific form of humanitarian processing), it would be a 135 year wait for the resettlement of all refugees. Not to mention these camps are not accessible or available in countries where people face persecution.

Does it seem reasonable to force such a “queue” upon people who are fleeing terror, violence and war?

Refugee policy should be framed in terms of facts, not fear. If we are committed to a more comprehensive and regional solution to processing asylum seekers, particularly those who flee on the basis of homophobia and transphobia, we should begin by processing asylum seekers here in Australia.

In particular, we should not try to outsource our international obligations to another country, especially to ones that do not even recognise them.

After all, are we no longer the “Lucky Country” that values a fair go for all?

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

116 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:16am | 03/09/11

      Same old, same old rubbish. And we all know the answers to these tired open-border arguments by now.

      The debate is over. The good guys have the majority, and we aren’t going to change our minds.

      Australia has a sovereign right to control its own borders, to decide who comes here and the manner in which they arrive. It’s time to dump the outdated Refugee Convention and rationalise our immigration policies. The bulk of the voters know this, and the endless browbeating of the chattering classes won’t change it.

      Bring on the election!

      Reply

    • MarkH says:

      11:06am | 03/09/11

      The High Court of Australia is the ‘chattering classes’ Erick?

      Happy to see a rationalisation of immigration laws and other arrangements (even changing our Refugee Convention obligations for a recognition of our sovereign rights) but curtailing the power of the High Court to check Federal government power is a bit beyond the pale even for rational former lefties like yourself Erick.

      Yes, indeed bring on an election.

    • yetanothertom says:

      11:27am | 03/09/11

      @ Erick, “Australia has a sovereign right to control its own borders…”
      That is “Australia” not “Erick”

      This article does not advocate an “open-border”, so please, put that straw man to bed and address the article.
      I note that now your controlling the borders and calling elections? And you still have time to be first post! Hats off.

    • Richard says:

      02:50pm | 03/09/11

      I had to laugh when a guy who appears to spend at least 18 hours per day on The Punch website repeatedly hitting F5 tries to use “chattering classes” as an insult.

    • Erick says:

      05:06am | 04/09/11

      @MarkH - I didn’t even mention the High Court, so your comment is entirely irrelevant.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:29am | 04/09/11

      @Erick, you’re losing this one buddy.  Just sayin’.

    • egg says:

      11:03am | 05/09/11

      @erick, i don’t know all the answers, so please enlighten me. tell me why this well-written, rational article is wrong and you and your “good guy” pals are right.

      oh, please, i do so need to be educated… you see, to me it seems like you don’t HAVE a good argument against what this nice man has to say, so you fell back to the same arguments about “protecting borders” as usual. in case you failed to read the article before copying & pasting your answer, this article addresses that issue. extremely well. so please do teach me. i obviously need it. i wanna be a “good guy” too! smile

    • acotrel says:

      06:27am | 03/09/11

      ‘In a compelling majority, the High Court seemed to think so, issuing a permanent injunction against the Commonwealth Government, barring them from pursuing the current proposal to trade asylum seekers with Malaysia. ‘

      What a pity Howard wasn’t dragged into court over the ‘Pacific Solution’ ?  His cynicism, exhibited by his denying asylum seeker access to the courts, was only acknowledged in another High Court decision last year.  The wheels of justice grind too slowly !

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      09:04am | 03/09/11

      Here, here acotrel, only difference I can see between the Malaysian joke and the Pacific Solution was, the tax payers were still footing the bill to make all those being processed under the PS, were given shelter, medical treatment, food, access to the internet, phones, radio and television and such.  I don’t think the Malaysian Joke had quite the same ‘benefits’.  I agree with the court ruling, shame the Labor plebs can’t see it for what it is, quashing and inhumane (wash our hands of that problem) policy.  So before you ask me what would I do, I ask you acotrel, what would you do solve the problem.

    • acotrel says:

      10:07am | 03/09/11

      @NIhonin
      I’d find a country town with same potential that Albury had in the 50s, and I’d do the same thing we did with the refugees at Bonegilla.

    • nihonin says:

      11:07am | 03/09/11

      It’s a shame acotrel, that neither side of politics seem to be able to think of ideas like this.

    • acotrel says:

      07:53am | 04/09/11

      @nihonin
      It wouldn’t be impossible to select a growth centre such as Wsgga where there is a large defence base, and assign the boat people to develop the town.  If social security payments were only made available to allocated people through one office in that town, they could have complete freedom to come and go as they pleased.  The incentive would be to remain in the town.  If the only work they had was involved with building their own homes, the situation would be ‘win-win’ for everyone.  Bonegilla worked in the fifties, on a basis of helping newcomers integrate.  If we think a bit differently about support services, it could be a great thing for towns like Wagga ?

    • marley says:

      08:13am | 04/09/11

      @Acotrel - explain to me why a refugee who has friends, relatives or co-nationals in Sydney or Brisbane would want to work in Wagga?  That’s the reality for most refugees - they have contacts, or at least people who speak the same language, in the big cities, and that’s where they’re going to want to go.

      And there isn’t a thing you can do to stop them taking the first bus, train or plane from Wagga to the CBDs.  They’re as entitled as any other Australian resident to access education, social assistance and the labour market wherever they choose.  You can’t simply “assign” them to build houses or develop the town, and deny them access to other employment or social security,  there or elsewhere.  You might try to offer additional incentives to keep them in one place, but you can’t restrict their benefits in the way you seem to be suggesting.

    • Chris_D says:

      06:28am | 03/09/11

      Another day, another bleeding heart opinion piece about asylum seekers.

      “Does it seem reasonable to force such a “queue” upon people who are fleeing terror, violence and war?”

      I would say once a refugee has already travelled thousands of kilometres to get to Indonesia, he/she has already escaped violence and war.  A strawman argument.

      “However, the mythic “queue” that people demand asylum seekers wait in does not exist.”

      When I go to Woolies, I take a number and wait my turn at the deli counter.  There is no “queue” but i still have to wait my turn.  Those who just turn up and order without waiting could be considered “queue” jumpers.  A better argument would be to use the authors own smoke and mirrors, ” it would be a 135 year wait for the resettlement of all refugees.”  Obviously this does not mean it would take 135 years for each refugee, (another strawman argument) but surely we can all agree that catching a boat to Australia to end up in a detention centre is more expediant than waiting patiently in a refugee camp in another country.  Thus the term “queue jumper”.

      “it is also worth mentioning that over 85 percent of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be genuine refugees. In comparison, most asylum seekers arrive by plane, and approximately 20 percent are granted asylum.
      If this is the case, then surely our concern for border protection should be focused on the skies, rather than the seas? “

      Another strawman argument. The answer is no.  Most people arriving by plane who do not pass immigration are sent straight back home.  People arriving by boat go straight into detention centres at taxpayers expense, while waiting processing.  Hardly an honest comparison.

      “Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) asylum seekers flee persecution in Malaysia and seek refuge in Australia.”

      What about those who have legal rights in their home country, but then come to Australia where those rights are illegal? Are we then denying them their “basic human rights” if we prevent them from excercising those rights they previously had?

      I do not have a problem with taking, processing and accepting any genuine refugee, but I have a serious issue with all the BS bleeding heart opinions that use emotional blackmail, guilt and strawman argument to sway the argument, and I certainly have issue with lawyers who make it increasingly difficult to properly protect our Sovereignty.

      Reply

    • Cuppa says:

      09:17am | 03/09/11

      Great post chris D.Agree 100%.

    • acotrel says:

      09:52am | 03/09/11

      @ChrisD
      ‘When I go to Woolies, I take a number and wait my turn at the deli counter.  There is no “queue” but i still have to wait my turn.  Those who just turn up and order without waiting could be considered “queue” jumpers.’

      If you were in a Woolies where some of the asylum seekers come from, you might get killed in a hunger fuelled rush !  Please think about what you are saying.  ‘Smug as a bug in a Persian rug’ ?

    • RB says:

      10:28am | 03/09/11

      Acatrol, please think about what you are saying.“dont piss down my back & tell me its raining”.If we had these illegals in woolies, then chances are they would be lining up for ciggies & phone cards that they would expect the taxpayers of this country to pay for also.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:39am | 03/09/11

      @acotrel, I’ve been to “Woolies” (please don’t take that term too literally) in a number of countries where Asylum seekers “come from” and I’ve not seen any more desperation to get food than I have in Australia. 

      Where do you draw your comments from?  Actual experience or just opinion.  Maybe you need to think a bit more about 90% of your posts.

    • acotrel says:

      10:42am | 03/09/11

      @Chris D
      Ever heard of the saying ‘there but for the grace of God go I ” ?
      I was born seven days before Pearl Harbour.  As a kid, I was so glad the Yank soldiers were here to help us.  I later saw the movie ‘A Town Like Alice’  in which the women walked all around Malaysia carrying their kids accompanied by one Japanese guard, and dying one by one.  It could have so easily have been us !

    • Chris_D says:

      11:11am | 03/09/11

      @acotrel, I refer to my question above, re; your comment.  Please dispense with your usual self-serving tales of self indulgance. 

      Just answer the question.  Cheers.

    • acotrel says:

      01:33pm | 03/09/11

      @ChrisD
      Do they have a woolies in that refugee camp near the border of Kenya? The one which was bulit for 90,000 people, and now has 400,000 in it !

    • Yetanothertom says:

      02:01pm | 03/09/11

      It is a bit sad that we live in a world where “Bleeding Heart” is used as a derogatory term. Perhaps one day we will learn to admire the most compassionate among us.

      @ Chris_D: If you and your family were stuck in a refugee camp in a third world country with little food, no education for your kids, no work and no freedom - what would you do?

      Would you:

      A) Do whatever you could to make something of the one life you are granted.
      B) Wait in a 135 year long queue and what your kids grow up without a future.

      A queue that does not move is not a queue, its just a group of folk stuck in miserable conditions.

    • acotrel says:

      02:04pm | 03/09/11

      @ChrisD
      Never believe that it is impossible that your turn will ever come.  One day it could be your turn in the barrel !

    • Yetanothertom says:

      02:05pm | 03/09/11

      PS Chris:
      “Most people arriving by plane who do not pass immigration are sent straight back home.”

      Actually no airline will let you board without a valid entry visa for your destination country. The issue with airline arrivals is probably visa overstayers.

    • dd says:

      02:22pm | 03/09/11

      I agree with Chris D. The so called “asylum seekers’ have learned how make an ass out of us using the bleeding heart syndrome. They would have found asylum in lots of closer countries but our welfare attracts them too much. I do not think that we should take as immigrants people from such opposing cultures , it will lead, as in the UK and Europe ,to a great deal of trouble as their numbers grow. I read that there are 37 million refugees adrift in the world. We should take them all?What about our own homeless and sick? Stiff titties?

    • Chris_D says:

      10:48pm | 03/09/11

      @acotrel, I won’t waste any more time on you. 

      @Yetanothertom, you prove my point about people being led down the garden path by strawman arguments re:135 year queue.  As far as passing immigration, you have to get there first, so you seem to have missed that point as well.

    • Yetanothertom says:

      01:29am | 04/09/11

      Come on Chris_D, don’t be shy answer the question, would you let your kids grow up in a refugee camp if you where offered an alternative like applying for Asylum in Australia?

      Don’t be cute about the 135 years thing, the great majority of displaced people in the world will never be processed and placed in signatory countries.

    • Chris_D says:

      07:38am | 04/09/11

      @Yetanothertom, your comments are pointless and as leading as the authors article was misleading. 

      You conveniently ignore the facts (referring to it as “cute”) to ask a ridiclulous question based around an imaginary idea.

    • Vicki PS says:

      03:03pm | 04/09/11

      Chris_D, whining about “emotional blackmail, guilt and straw man arguments” from someone writing off his opponents’ “BS bleeding heart opinions” is about as piss-weak as debate gets.  Next time I’m at Woolies deli, I’ll ask for a kilo of queue jumpers and a dozen illegal immigrants to go with the raw prawns.

    • Yetanothertom says:

      03:10pm | 04/09/11

      I don’t know Chris_D, it seems to me as if you are unwilling to answer a question that makes you feel uncomfortable.

      I’m not sure what “the facts” you reckon I am ignoring are? The fact you don’t want to contemplate is that the UNHCR program will not ever place all the families waiting in refugee camps. Many spend their entire lives in camp. The not-at-all-imaginary situation is that many people face the choice of waiting for something that may never happen or trying to proactively change their family’s circumstance.

      Sometimes before you judge people you should try to imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. You don’t have to answer my question here of course, it is just food for thought.

    • Brian says:

      03:27pm | 04/09/11

      “Most people arriving by plane who do not pass immigration are sent straight back home. “

      There is one exception to this - if they have made a claim for asylum (as is specifically being referred to in this case). Once such a claim is made they are not deported until it has been processed, and hence your argument is perfectly valid in every single case EXCEPT the one you tried to use it in.

    • Chris_D says:

      07:42pm | 04/09/11

      @Vicki PS, anything relevant to add?.

      @Yetanothertom, “would you let your kids grow up in a refugee camp if you where offered an alternative like applying for Asylum in Australia?”  Your question is loaded, and you know that.  Ask me something relevant to my comments and the article and I will provide an answer.

      @Brian, fair call.  I take your point.  Cheers.

    • egg says:

      11:16am | 05/09/11

      so chris_d, the fact that approximately 85% of “queue jumpers” are genuine, and approximately 20% of people coming here by plane to ask for asylum are genuine, what is your solution? you seem to love pointing out that nobody else is adding anything (when they disagree with you), but refuse to add anything yourself other than “bleeding hearts! strawman! whinge whinge whinge!” so go on, then, give us the big solution, oh adder of much value to this conversation…

    • Against the Man says:

      06:32am | 03/09/11

      Lets trade Gillard to Malaysia for some of their natural resources -  but than again she aren’t worth much…..........

      When is Kevin going to deliver the final blow and finally become a man? The ALP Soap Opera…..........same ol’ Labor.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:00am | 03/09/11

      @Against the Man
      ‘When is Kevin going to deliver the final blow and finally become a man? ‘

      Probably at about the same time that Tony Abbott gets a brain !

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      11:42am | 03/09/11

      @acotrel

      Tony Abbott has proven he has a brain.

      He has at least two degrees, one in economics, and was a Rhodes Scholar.

      8-)

    • Against the Man says:

      01:09pm | 03/09/11

      acotrel - Tony has a brain because he hasn’t delivered failure after failure after failure of policies

      The funny thing is that Gillard is a so called lawyer? Didn’t comprehend the legal aspect of her own policy HAHaHaHaHaHahAHaHaHa that is comdey Gold baby!

    • Against the Grain says:

      01:26pm | 03/09/11

      Takes a really really big brain to have NO as your policy platform!

      The man is dangerous.

      Just say NO to Abbott.

    • acotrel says:

      01:38pm | 03/09/11

      ‘Tony Abbott has proven he has a brain.

      He has at least two degrees, one in economics, and was a Rhodes Scholar.’

      He probably got them off the back of a Weeties packet !  You’d have to ask the question of the Cecil Rhodes Foundation, if this is the standard of their favoured citizens !

    • acotrel says:

      01:41pm | 03/09/11

      @ATM
      The crown solicitor is still to advise on the prospect of ever taking processing of claims offshore again !  If Tony Abbott is so smart. let him sound off about Nauru again.  He’ll probably find he’s shot himself in the foot AGAIN !

    • Against the Man says:

      10:01am | 04/09/11

      @ Against the Grain - Yes and Juliar has a really big brain when she gives in to the Greens and Independences and sells out Australia. Wow so that is how she gets results….......

      @ acotrel - Now if we can’t have Nauru Tony, can blame Juliar for that, Australians are not going to like that another Labor f@#k up:)
      But I clearly see you haven’t understood why the Malaysian No-solution isn’t allowed. Did you go to the same Law School as gillard ? Hahaha

      Same ol Labor….......

    • John A Neve says:

      12:25pm | 04/09/11

      AtM,
      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you born this way!
      But, the fact that you have never learnt anything is a real worry.

      Moving on, tell me what do you really have against an Independent, Green, Labor government?
      In a democracy people vote, the Idependents, Greens and Labor MP’s were elected. Other than the fact that Little John bought your soul with tax cuts and middle class hand-outs, added to which you cannot think for yourself. Why are you subservient to the robber barons of this country?

    • thatmosis says:

      06:40am | 03/09/11

      Lets not forget the term “illegal” which means someone who has broken the Law. Now I realise that there is a revolving door mentality amongst the judicary but people who break Australian Law should not be treated as guests in this country to the depriment of our own citizens. Housing these people in the community in rented house for instance should be a low riority until all thiose Australian waiting for public housing are accomodaed. One phone call is also sufficiient to let family know that they have arrived not cart blanche phone calles and internet. If they destroy any property whilst in detention that should be an instant trip back to where they came from, no ifs buts or whys. People are getting sick and tired of the preferentila treatment metered out to these lawbreakers and its time a message was sent that its finished and if you do travel to Australai ilegally then you will probably be in detention for a year or two or sent straight back home.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:58am | 03/09/11

      @thatmosis
      When I was a kid, there were millions of refugees walking the planet after WW2.  We took a huge number into Australia.  Put them into places such as Bonegilla, and actually helped them into society.  Our current generation of entrepreneurs seem so self obsessed that they cannot see any benefit in helping others.

    • Carol says:

      10:35am | 03/09/11

      thatmosis, I suggest you look up some of the laws you consider these people to be breaking. For example:

      Article 14.1 of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

      Australia is one of 146 signatories of the The UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), which stipulates that even if unauthorised entry is illegal according to domestic law (which in Australia it’s not) authorities should not discriminate against and
      have an obligation to process people that are seeking asylum.

      It is not illegal under any Australian domestic law, including the The Australia Migration Act 1958 recognises entry without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum.

      Sorry, buddy, but you’re going to have to do better than the “but they’re ILLEGAL” argument.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:48am | 03/09/11

      @thatmosis; I totally agree about the way refugees awaiting processing are allowed to do willful criminal damage, but are not immediately deported. There should be some irrefutable rules and regulations regarding character assessment,  and anyone who purposefully harms themselves or others or commits any criminal act on our shores should be immediately deported to where ever it was they came.

    • acotrel says:

      01:46pm | 03/09/11

      @ChrisD
      ‘There should be some irrefutable rules and regulations regarding character assessment,  and anyone who purposefully harms themselves or others or commits any criminal act on our shores should be immediately deported to where ever it was they came.’

      So we are to deport people in whom we’ve caused mental illness by locking them up, and depriving them of any hope ?

    • Chris_D says:

      10:52pm | 03/09/11

      @acotrel, no we are to deport people who cause willful criminal damage while awaiting processing. 

      I thought I had already said that?  You seem to struggle on many counts acotrel.

    • egg says:

      11:20am | 05/09/11

      commit willful criminal damage when they are illegally imprisoned for seeking asylum, which is their right? i’d break shit if someone did that to me, too, just quietly. it’s really easy to condemn people when you don’t have to think about the reasons they’re in that psition in the first place, i find.

    • Super D says:

      07:37am | 03/09/11

      Not a single person getting on a boat from Indonesia to Australia is in immediate danger.

      To claim that Asylum seekers heading to Australia are not fully aware of the legal situation is extraordinary and has no basis in fact. 

      If you want to argue that we should provide a place for all who seek one that is reasonable, so long as you are also prepared to eliminate the welfare state and minimum working conditions that is.  If not it is simply illogical.

      I don’t understand why the progressive left is incapable of telling the truth or acknowledging the logical outcomes of the policies they espouse.  They have not learned that it is their intellectual shallowness that sees them turkey slapped by reality every time.

      Reply

    • dd says:

      03:02pm | 03/09/11

      Not a single person getting off a boat in Australian territory even looks like a refugee. They have been well fed, well brushed and look extremely triumphant at having got their own way. God help anyone who displeases them because they will bash,burn and smash stuff if anyone dares. Just make sure they will be nice and comfy with all good things given to them or else….............

    • Fiddler says:

      08:00am | 03/09/11

      Because those who will have trouble finding employment based upon being transgender are somehow more deserving than those in an African refugee camp fleeing genocide and famine? I really don’t pick up any actual argument in here, you are simply pushing your own barrow and having a whinge.
      BTW please provide proof that asylum seekers don’t google detention or immigration policies. How you can make such a claim is up there with a religious person saying you can’t prove god doesn’t exist.
      I’m glad I don’t go to uni any more, remembering having to run the gauntlet of you idiots on the City Road footbridge every morning trying to push lands rights for gay whales down our throats.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:03am | 03/09/11

      @Fiddler
      And I thought that university lecturers didn’t fail students these days!  Silly me !

    • Fiddler says:

      01:35pm | 03/09/11

      yes you are silly acotrel. As proven in every post you put on this site

    • Slouch Hat says:

      08:10am | 03/09/11

      I am terrified of the violence and fear some of the unauthorised arrivals bring with them to Australia.  Manyi have cultlural and belefif systems which willnever fit into the fabiric of this country and yet the Refugee Industry wants open borders.  The only fair way for taxpayers is for the Government of the Day to revoke the ancient archaic UNHCR Convention which blackmails its’ signatories into accepting any one from anywhere because we are not allowed to discriminate.  Why not?  Many of the refugees discriminate against us?  In fact, there are more bigots and racists amongst refugees than in Australia .

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      01:49pm | 03/09/11

      @ Slouch Hat
      So it is all that bastard Bob Memzie’s fault for signing the UNHCR agreement ?

    • Yetanothertom says:

      01:50pm | 03/09/11

      @ Slouch Hat: I’m pretty sure there is no evidence for any of the assertions you have just made.

    • dd says:

      02:16pm | 04/09/11

      yetanothertom, can you recall the Lebanese gang rapes of “aussie sluts”? Hilali’s little jibes of “cat’s meat”?Or is your memory very selective? Then there was a spot of trouble in Cronulla over bullying of lifesavers. Evidence? What evidence he wonders.

    • Yetanothertom says:

      03:54pm | 04/09/11

      @dd: I don’t think you would like anyone to make assumptions about you because someone who happened to of the same ethnic background or religion as you committed a crime.

      Slouch Hat says: “In fact, there are more bigots and racists amongst refugees than in Australia” - you cant defend that statement. It is pure speculation, tainted by prejudice, presented as fact.

    • RickY says:

      08:59am | 03/09/11

      Every dollar that is spent on these illegal grubs is one more dollar that doesnt go to an Australian in need.There are 36000 homeless children in Australias major cities who sleep in the cold, but our taxes are spent on motels, internet & phone cards for illegals.Our old age pensioners(former taxpayers) barely get by for lack of funding, but we have plenty of money for buildings that ungrateful illegals then burn down.We need to get our priorities straight & start helping our own instead of blow in freeloaders who are taking the taxpayers of Australia for a ride.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:12am | 03/09/11

      @RickY
      Ever heard of the phrase ‘opportunity for improvement’?  It is about turning a problem to your own advantage ! Perhaps asylum seekers might be considered to be a ‘resource’?

    • Worzle Gummidge says:

      11:19am | 03/09/11

      I second acotrel’s idea of grinding asylum seekers into a nutritious paste to feed to the homeless!

    • acotrel says:

      01:53pm | 03/09/11

      @Worzel Gummige
      Nice one Quafarmaus ! - another form of Soylent Green ?  That movie was about where the world would end up if the LNP ever achieved its Utopia !

    • mick says:

      09:08am | 03/09/11

      What Australians need to weigh up is if it wants a lower standard of living for future generations or not.  We have a dead Manufacturing Sector and essentially import everything.  This means that to “pay” the bills we need to export (our income).  The demand for exported minerals is finite and as a nation we cannot increase this beyond a point.  If we do we will flood the market and drive down prices for our minerals, which leaves us no better off.
      The problem is that with a population increasing so dramatically the nation’s wealth will need to be split more ways, let alone the infrastructure costs involved for an increasing population.  The end result is not pretty and the problem of unwanted immigrants/refugees will increase in time.
      Australians need to rethink policies whilst there is still time.  Predicting the future based on the facts in front of us is what needs to happen, not the baseless and emotional arguments which we see doing the rounds in the media circus.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:18am | 03/09/11

      @Mick
      ’ Predicting the future based on the facts in front of us is what needs to happen, not the baseless and emotional arguments which we see doing the rounds in the media circus. ‘

      That’s a strange approach ! Most people make their judgements based on history.  Sort of like driving a car looking into the rear vision mirror !
      Are you suggesting we should imagine what we could be if we planned for the future ?  You’ll never sell that idea to Tony Abbott !

    • marley says:

      10:36am | 03/09/11

      I agree we need to discuss this on the basis of the facts in front of us.  And one very clear fact is that the number of boat people/asylum seekers is so small as to have absolutely no impact on population growth here.  If you want to talk about the skilled migration program, the student program, the 457 program, the family reunification program fine - they all do have an impact on population growth.  Refugees?  pfft.  A drop in the bucket.  Whatever other issues you may have with refugees, this is not one of them.

    • acotrel says:

      02:01pm | 03/09/11

      @marley
      The problem has always been that Tony Abbott has got nothing, so he has to be inventive.  Asylum seekers have never really been an issue, except that Abbott has made them one !  He seems to think that he can crawl into the Lodge by simply repeating fabrications and negativity loud and long.  The more he does that, the more he is likely to be observed as a conman by the voters. Leadership is also about creativity, and motivating people.  Does Abbott really do those two things ?

    • marley says:

      03:22pm | 03/09/11

      @acotrel - I fear you must have blanked out the last few years. 

      Perhaps you don’t recall the ALP government of one K. Rudd, which had a solid majority in the House, and an opposition led not by Tony Abbott but by Brendan Nelson, followed by Malcolm Turnbull.  That government had every opportunity to sort out the asylum issue against a comparatively passive and disoriented opposition.  It could have taken the high road, cleaned up mandatory detention and offshore processing, and been done with it. Instead, when some mild reforms caused a spike in boat arrivals, it panicked, and began the infamous race to the bottom.

      The Coalition may have provided the shovel, but the ALP has dug its own hole on this one.

    • stephen says:

      09:43am | 03/09/11

      But the High Court did express opinion on the merits of Malaysia’s human rights standards.
      This is the crux of the denial to send refugees there.

      I think what has borne out of this saga is the possible interference of the High Court into matters which it should have no bearing. It has placed a judgement on the efficacy of refugee swaps that may or may not be detrimental to either party.
      It is neither a legal nor illegal act.
      Why does the High Court then stand for conscience, or indeed what is possible ?
      It is not God.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:34am | 03/09/11

      @ Stephen
      Are you saying the High Court has made a ‘value judgement’ ?

    • stephen says:

      06:46pm | 03/09/11

      Well it may be a value judgement Alcotrel ; I’m not legally trained and it may be OK for it to be so.
      (What decision does not have a ‘value’ placed upon it ?)
      But I think the High Court has attempted here to play ‘Judges Advocate’, by forcing its way into policy which it may think has quagmired into dangerous political territory.
      In other words, it might have seen dangers in this transaction and tried to stop it here, as much as a guardian may halt bad behaviour so it does not spoil the family.
      Only conjecture, though I got such a shock at this decision, I’d love to read the Judgement.

    • michael j says:

      10:25am | 03/09/11

      The Governments only policy that looked half descent and the high court wacks it
      stuff em what’s the high court going to do sack the government or lock them up ,,
      i mean these high judges are the same ones that let bikies walk our streets
      i think this overpaid ,overrated court has had its day,ignore em i say

      Reply

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      06:18pm | 03/09/11

      Why was it decent to force trade humans?  That is illegal and was rightly kicked out.

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      10:29am | 03/09/11

      My father came here as an economic and political refugee from Cyprus in 1951 , an invited Migrant who waited in a cue, worked his passage on a small cargo ship where he celebrated his 17th bitrhday, he never leaned on others to feed, clothe, or house him, he never wanted to change the great country that gave him the opportunity to do well for himself and embraced its values, culture and principles paid his taxes and obeyed the laws, he never had any opposition to his children attending public schools, or dressing how they liked or marrying outside his culture and religion, instead it was an opportunity for him to mix the two cultures and enrichen the lives of so many others.
      I see a stark difference in the quality of immigrants who come here without, invitation hands out demanding social security and human rights in the same breath, then resisting change and threatening us with all sorts of littigation if demands are not met, but the toughest bitter pill to swallow is the complete resistance to assimilate, intergrate and embrace the culture and values that GOOD migrants do.

      Reply

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      06:17pm | 03/09/11

      Get lost.  Refugges are not fucking immigrants who can sit around waiting to die.

    • jf says:

      02:27pm | 04/09/11

      Marilyn Shepherd says: 06:17pm | 03/09/11

      “Get lost.  Refugges are not fucking immigrants who can sit around waiting to die.”

      Sadly refugees are sitting around waiting to die whilst wealthier more fortunate people immigrants posing as refugees pick and choose their preferred destination.

    • Sarah says:

      02:37pm | 06/09/11

      @Govt@FauCitizen - your father sounds like a good hard working Aussie - my hat goes off to him. Ignore the vitriole from Ms Shepherd.

      Your second half of your comment about the stark difference that you see - I could not agree with you more.

      We have demanding, violent, tantrum throwing, self-entitled economic refugees shoving their hands’ in our faces, quoting their rights and liberties (oh yes, that works well for the argument I heard once, about boat people not getting clear information on their rights during their hazardous boat journey)

      And then we have people like this Marilyn Shepherd (Dear God - where do I actually start with this pest?) abusing you, denigrating every other Immigrant and your father.

      -

      @JF - Yes - you are right. Genuine refugees - those who are displaced and cannot return to their country and have the right to live safely, who have no money, no belongings, no home - absolutely nada. They spend years waiting to be accepted to a new country as a refugee, in a UN camp and then finally, they arrive in that new country.

      Not those who run like thieves in the night from their home country, with a stack of cash in hand and ready to give over to the people smugglers, AFTER crossing multiple countries - (because their goal is welfare-state Australia) and who then turn up here and star riots, sew their lips together, starve themselves and generally carry on like ungrateful wretches - because they don’t get free and easy access directly into Australia and our welfare system.

      I am sick to death of the entire situation. And I’m especially sick to death of lefties like Ms Shepherd who think it is acceptable to go running around abusing people for leaving a comment and for spewing her sadistic vitriole across a variety of mediums in this country, all whilst sucking from the tax payers teat.

    • Leigh says:

      10:43am | 03/09/11

      “In numerical terms, it is also worth mentioning that over 85 percent of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be genuine refugees.”

      What doesn’t seem to be “worth mentioning” by Senthorun Raj, the media, the immigration department, and the Minister, is just how our immigration officials, actually decide who is genuine and who is not.

      Remember the Afghanis who turned out to be Pakistanis? If officials can’t get the nationality right, how can they be relied on to make decisions on people who learn a story by rote, who have no identification on them and who could very well be simply economic opportunists?

      Despite Raj’s claim that there is no queue to jump, it is quite obvious that there is a queue where thousands of refugees in Malaysia and throughout the world – camps where people HAVE been processed but are still waiting in the QUEUE.

      And, international law still makes it illegal to try to enter a country without documentation; people thinking they might get asylum not excepted.

      Reply

    • pj says:

      10:57am | 03/09/11

      Their reasoning is ??? I’ve said it before its an invasion of our country,and no one in goverment will stand up to the plate to STOP the invasion?Have we learnt nothing?Invasion of one country to another was considered a declaration of war!! WTF is going on!! You can help someone somewhere,but not everyone everywhere! As its been said..“You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge”

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      02:10pm | 03/09/11

      @pj
      ‘Invasion of one country to another was considered a declaration of war!! ‘

      Like when we invaded Iraq ?

    • Heelix says:

      03:21am | 04/09/11

      We didnt invade iraq, we had the SAS doing clandestine operations in there but the US did the invading. I wonder if a country like China or India invaded us, would they invest billions into the country? would they build schools and hospitals? Would they provide security so Sharks supporters dont cross the Georges River and do some ethnic cleansing in St George?

      My great grandpa was a boat person. He originally came from Italy, he was a sailor an one day he jumped ship and settled in Australia with nothing but his clothes.
      I think the point alot of people are trying to make is that it is not neccessarily the refugees (economic immigrants) themselves that are the problem. The problem is the waste, lack of leadership, poor governance and the disregard for Australias sovereignty.
      The government has failed. At least if we tradedthe 800 for 4000 plus investment in facilities in malaysia there would be a net benefit to Australia. But no, now we are accepting 4000 uneducated, useless people at great cost and there has been no mention of our investment in facilities and Malaysias education system.
      Meanwhile local and state governments are cutting services, cutting staff, its becoming harder to find a job. The last 2 positions i applied for with local council had about 90 applicants. $200 million could have paid for alot of jobs or infrastructure.

      This government just doesnt have the balls. But as my mum says, dont whinge about things you cant change, get involved politically and have a go. Even a few of my 20 year old mates (immigrants from China, Tanzania and Peru) are writing letters which was pretty damn surprising for me.

    • Jane2 says:

      01:29pm | 03/09/11

      I still think one way to solve many of our issues is to make a media announcement “All refugee seekers who have identification papers that can be verified will be released into the community within x months of arriving, all people whose identification cant be verified will remain in custody until such time as it can be verified. Anyone having false documentation will be sent back to your last known port with no right to appeal”

      Do something like that and I suspect everyone would suddenly arrive with documentation, after all we know all the current ones arrived legally in Malaysia which means they had documentation at that point.

      Reply

    • Donny says:

      01:51pm | 03/09/11

      During the below story, it is noted that Abbott has offered to work with the Govt on the Immigration Detention issue, yet Swan has claimed he is only playing “Politics”? http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/gillard-tough-as-nails-swan/story-e6frea73-1226128702912

      Whether Abbott is trying to point score, or truly try and assist, I don’t think that Labor are in any position to be claiming the high moral ground.  Swans comment - “It’s just another demonstration of how unqualified he is for high office” just goes to show how arrogant they are and it appears they do not believe they have done anything wrong. That is also part of the reason why some voters have left them,  the sheer arrogance and failure to listen to people.
      Blame the High Court or Abbott, for their failing here,  but at the very least someone has come out to offer assistance in sorting out this mess. They can’t seem to do it themselves !

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      01:58pm | 03/09/11

      Then there is the acting foreign minister giving over 4 million dollars to the Libyan rebel government.Why, when the rebels are being given access to the billions which Cadaffi had squirreled away.There will be a influx of Libyan refugees into Australia as has been in Europe , other countries need to work together to get Libya rebuilt quickly, so that their people can get back to living their lives.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:26pm | 03/09/11

      Australia is a signatory to various International Agreements on the issue of refugees.
      I have heard John Howard, Phillip Ruddock, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard,  Chris Bowen &  other riff-raff MPs state that the refugees ( Read: Displaced People, Asylum Seekers) arriving by leaky, dangerous boats, passage for which they have paid people, just like those who pay Qantas etc. to fly them here & then claim asylum, are “Illegals”
      Are they really “Illegals”?
      Where in any of the International Agreements on Refugees etc, which Australia voluntarily signed, does it lay down the rules which state the only acceptable methods these desperate people may use to come to Australia?
      There are none.
      Our politicians know there are none.
      Our politicians are simply using the entire issue for political point scoring.
      Why the outcry by Opposition & other politicians regarding Julia Gillard’s intemperate outburst against the ruling by the High Court which has shut down the despicable, inhumane “Malaysian Solution”?
      Gillard is not the first Australian Prime Minister, State Premier or Chief Minister, Minister or MP to criticise the decisions of this, the Greatest Bulwark of Australian Democracy, The High Court of Australia.
      She certainly won’t be the last.
      The result of the Court’s decision was 6 to 1. Gillard’s picking on one of the 7 Judges for personal criticism was inexcusable.
      Again she isn’t the first to do this. Though it may be her first & only chance to do so, she won’t be the last.
      All peoples coming to Australia & claiming Asylum have every legal right to do so & to do so by whatever means available to them.

      Reply

    • Bho Ghan-Pryde says:

      02:35pm | 03/09/11

      Well Australia does not force them to queue. They have other options such as Malaysia, Indonesia and other places. It is curious that Muslims in particular who are so fond of lecturing us all on the superiority of the Muslim brotherhood and its values run so hard and far from Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia to get to non Muslim Australia in their pursuit of asylum. Odd that. Why are Muslim countries so scary for Muslims?

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:46pm | 03/09/11

      I, too, have often wondered this.
      Maybe it is because some of the Muslim countries are for moderate Muslims, just as for moderates within other religions, “Too Muslim”. We must not forget that not all Muslims actually go along with those extremely harsh laws some Muslim regimes impose on their citizens. Ie. Cutting off the hand of a thief, stoning adulterers etc. Some of these practices, including the owning of slaves, are, if we take the Bible literally & live in more barbaric places, perfectly acceptable for Christians & Jews.
      Most people today reject the more outrageous & that is why they prefer to come to a place like Australia where they can practice their religion, work, live & play without extremists interfering.
      ModerateMuslims. Islam is, basically, a religion of Peace.but, just as in Christianity & Judaism, when Fundamentalists take over they bastardise the entire concept. Ther Qu’ran even tells Muslims that they mist allow & tolerate other religions. It is the Fundamentalists which have created the anxiety & distrust of their own by others

    • Yuri says:

      09:18pm | 03/09/11

      It’s interesting to note that the word Fundamentalist has itself been bastardized. A fundamentalist is someone who follows the core tenets of a religion or movement, someone who wishes to strip away the ancillary stuff and focus on the “fundamentals”. So in a literal sense fundamentalists should be at the moderate end of the spectrum, unless extremism is fundamental to the religion.

      Why is is that the word fundamentalist (of any religion) conjures up images of terrorists and the like (i.e. Islamic fundamentalists)?
      Are the views we hear expressed by such people the actual fundamentals of Islam?

    • willy K says:

      02:52pm | 03/09/11

      How about a really radical idea??

      How about fixing up these corrupt, war-monger countries who force their people to flee?  How about the people in these countries fixing them up?

      It is an utter joke that most of the planet wants to emigrate to AUS, UK, USA Canada or Scandinavia.  How about all these other B grade countries getting their sh!t together so they can be good countries to live too?

      Australia, the UK etc cannot support huge populations.  The people do not want to live with third world people with backward cultures and violent religions.  It is our choice.

      Fix the problem - then we will not need a solution.

      Reply

    • Mr Denorris says:

      05:25pm | 03/09/11

      Ah good.  The left wing of politics, who have butchered Australian’s immigration policies beyond recognition, are now giving suggestions about what they think can be done to fix the mess they made.  Do go on. 

      Actually, don’t.  We’ve had enough of your half baked ideas and the disasters they’ve caused.  Since 2008 the number of visas granted to offshore asylum seekers has been slashed and more than 200 are dead, all consequences of soft left wing policies.  You should collectively be ashamed.

      Reply

    • Southern Very Cross says:

      05:31pm | 03/09/11

      There is only one answer.  Revoke the UNHCR Convention and the 1967 Protocol which has us over a barrel if we make our own decisions.  Time to have our own Refugee Convention so we can decide how they can arrive instead of coming unvited.  Our Rules, our sovereign Nation.

      Reply

    • dd says:

      02:30pm | 04/09/11

      If only you were Prime Minister. It is more than time that Australians took their own country back. I cannot comprehend why other PM’s ,mostly Howard, never revoked that outdated Convention.Where in the hell was their brain? We do not want people from violent,tribal cultures coming here expecting to continue on with their traditions/beliefs -mainly at our expense because that is what is happening.I wish a pollie would get some kind of patriotism and belief in our own heritage ,worthy enough to fight for. I wish.

    • Homeless Homer says:

      05:33pm | 03/09/11

      Why don’t Muslims want to stay in Muslim countries?  Could it be because we are a soft touch and they are laughing all the way to Centrelink with their tribe of kids?

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      06:49pm | 03/09/11

      Why not ?
      Don’t you know any nice Muslims ?
      You should get around more.
      (It’s the really bad ones we don’t want : The barn-burners.)

    • Billy B says:

      07:14pm | 03/09/11

      acotrel - Sometimes you spill such rubbish I wonder what you’re on.

      Reply

    • sam says:

      08:49pm | 03/09/11

      first up they are not asylum seekers they are cashed up queue jumpers looking for a easy mark aka Australia . to fix this Australia should have mandatory charging for entering Australia illegally any unaccompanied miners there guardian or parent be found and the miner sent to them with a bill for costs

      Reply

    • Vicki PS says:

      03:05pm | 04/09/11

      You’re funny!

    • Brian says:

      03:23pm | 04/09/11

      Unaccompanied miners should be sent to appropriate mines in order to practice their trades. Unaccompanied minors, on the other hand, should be treated in accordance to domestic and international law - which they are. Second, they have arrived in Australia and made a claim for asylum. They are therefore asylum seekers - whether or not they have ‘jumped a queue’ somewhere does not change the fact they are asylum seekers.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      09:50pm | 03/09/11

      Hi there,

      You are asking questions and that is OK I guess but, saying things like banning live export asylum seekers sounds a little uneducated!!  After all we are talking about human beings & not live cattle.  I find it very unsettling & disturbing to say the least!!  This coming from the President of Amnesty International!!  I would much rather look at it from Mr Julian Burnside’s attitude, with lots of experience & expertise in this particular field and the added human touch!!

      We all have our own reasons for migrating to another country like Australia!!  With all the financial & economic troubles in the Euro zone,  we surely expect to see more Greeks also migrating to Australia for a better life!! That might be surprising to some, however it is definitely sign of the times. Next time, we look forward to more research & actual figures concerning migration as a whole!!  Lets all get our facts right as far as the numbers of migrants from different backgrounds are concerned.  Meaning Indian, Chinese , Middle Eastern & European backgrounds.  Best regard to your editors.

      Reply

    • Bho Ghan-Pryde says:

      12:49am | 04/09/11

      So you are saying I should pay taxes to support Greeks who happen to find themselves on tough times cause they borrowed too much but I can expect nothing if I go to Greece. How is it moral for the Australian government to confiscate the fruits of my labour in taxes and pay it to people from Greece who happen to be on tough times but would offer nothing to me if I was not of Greek decent and the situation was not reversed? How are these parasites any different from the old aristocracy that used to live on the back of workers?

    • marley says:

      07:55am | 04/09/11

      @Bho Ghan-Pryde - relax, mate.  Greeks might decide they want to migrate to Australia, but they still have to qualify - as skilled migrants, or family members or whatever.  They’re not going to just be able to pick up sticks, come here and demand asylum because times are tough back home.  Meeting the definition of a refugee in the Convention and the Migration Act requires a bit more than moaning about the unemployment rate back home.  Poverty has nothing at all to do with it.  So your tax dollars will not be going to your entirely imaginary Greek “parasites.”

    • Disraeli says:

      08:20am | 04/09/11

      Bit late now to take issue with The Punch house-style.

      The main aim of pieces here is very consistent.

      Make overstated claim/s, in the most combative terms possible short of the plainly actionable, baiting for a reaction. Any reaction, for or agin - about that, at least, they really do not care.

      They call it “opinion”, and they like it “colourful”. It’s really just lazy journalism, if that.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:32pm | 04/09/11

      Hi there,

      I am sorry to say that I personally find this particular article a bit subjective & has failed to impress at all!! Yes, we all do live in a democracy which gives us the rights to express ourselves freely!!  However, true journalism is all about being objective and so much more, right??  Of course, it is also about being thought provoking in order to give way to the healthy kind of arguments.

      Confrontation does not always offer the mental stimulation & mutual solutions, anyway.  It only aggravates the situation & stirs emotions of hatred & bigotry.  I personally find that communication is not a one way street, sometimes we learn so much more from just listening to people with lots of expertise & life experience.  Instead of calling each other names & down grading other nationalities, we all should have a broader view of the world we live in, right?? 

      I am still insisting on actual facts & figures concerning the numbers of migrants, who chose to settle in Australia.  And the proportions & comparisons according to year, circumstances and most importantly nationality!!  Because of the fact that I would really like to know what we are actually fighting over!!  Knowledge is Power.  Best regards to your editors.

    • marley says:

      09:10am | 04/09/11

      @Disraeli - I agree that the Punch publishes articles designed to provoke discussion, argument, and confrontation.  That’s their style.  You think that’s lazy journalism, and you may be right.

      But, to be fair, I don’t think the author of this particular piece would describe himself as a journalist, or his article as journalism.  If you check his bio, he makes no pretense of being anything but an advocate.  So, while the Punch may be guilty of lazy journalism for its methodology, I don’t think you can lay the same charge against Mr. Raj.

      Reply

    • Disraeli says:

      04:43pm | 04/09/11

      As far as this author particular author is concerned, I guess you have a point, Marley. He’s not a journo as such.

      But he is an Amnesty International officer - and a practised, published author on this and like topics.

      In my opinion, we ought to be able to expect better of Amnesty than florid, overblown tricks, that are also typical of The Punch tabloid house style.

    • marley says:

      07:31pm | 04/09/11

      @Disraeli - oh well, I expect nothing more of Amnesty than florid, overblown tricks.  I’ve been reading their stuff for years, and I haven’t been disappointed yet.

      I think the issue is really what the Punch itself is doing - I can see your argument about lazy journalism.  On the other hand, I actually kind of enjoy the juxtaposition of extreme positions, and the Punchers going in like piranhas to dissect the vulnerable, of whatever political or social persuasion.  It’s a lot more lively in this particular fishbowl than over at the Drum, where the articles, though more eloquent, are just as partisan, and the response times absolutely glacial.

    • Disraeli says:

      07:30am | 05/09/11

      True, though it flies in the face of the AI approach to more restrained campaigning on individuals, their internal antics - and hectoring of the paying membership - are the stuff of legend.

      However, I *do* expect better of them, given their aims & their funding by members/public donation. It’s worthwhile making that point, both about The Punch and AI, under a piece & author like this.

      Herre, among the hectoring, the empty fireworks, false argument, factoids, yadayadayada, there are some interesting poster/poster exchanges - the few where each has taken time to check their facts, to bat about in an equal tussle. That can be interesting.

      The most utterly boring:  endless streams of nothing but invective, filth, hysteria, wild claims and wilder conclusions. Some of these can take a fair bit of patience to show up for what they are. Others are fit only for the ignore button we don’t have.

      It is wryly amusing that so many pieces by Punch staff, and by others like this fellow, are so readily found wanting, with just a little digging.

      Others’ll disagree - The Punch wouldn’t peddle empty biffo if it didn’t think it “sold” well. Doesn’t make it right, though.

      larvatusprodeo.net is an interesting contrast. The pieces are often better, the response time lightning fast once you’ve got a handful of posts up, and the exchanges vigorous. Just less of the saturation level vitriol.

    • Disraeli says:

      07:31am | 05/09/11

      True, though it flies in the face of the AI approach to more restrained campaigning on individuals, their internal antics - and hectoring of the paying membership - are the stuff of legend.

      However, I *do* expect better of them, given their aims & their funding by members/public donation. It’s worthwhile making that point, both about The Punch and AI, under a piece & author like this.

      Herre, among the hectoring, the empty fireworks, false argument, factoids, yadayadayada, there are some interesting poster/poster exchanges - the few where each has taken time to check their facts, to bat about in an equal tussle. That can be interesting.

      The most utterly boring:  endless streams of nothing but invective, filth, hysteria, wild claims and wilder conclusions. Some of these can take a fair bit of patience to show up for what they are. Others are fit only for the ignore button we don’t have.

      It is wryly amusing that so many pieces by Punch staff, and by others like this fellow, are so readily found wanting, with just a little digging.

      Others’ll disagree - The Punch wouldn’t peddle empty biffo if it didn’t think it “sold” well. Doesn’t make it right, though.

      larvatusprodeo.net is an interesting contrast. The pieces are often better, the response time lightning fast once you’ve got a handful of posts up, and the exchanges vigorous. Just less of the saturation level vitriol.

    • Disraeli says:

      08:48am | 05/09/11

      Pity about the duplicate - Firefox reload quirk, seemingly.

    • marley says:

      08:54am | 05/09/11

      I’ll check that one out.  Thanks.

    • jack says:

      11:33am | 04/09/11

      There should be no problem with taking UNLIMITED number of refugees.

      The problem is with Cultural Marxists and certain interests pushing the Canadian model down our throats, giving refugees permanent residency and cornflake box citizenship when they should be sent home down the track when it is safe.

      This in turn is destroying the possibility of helping more people, and casting the immigration programs in a bad light.

      The Marxist do no care about people only political victory…

      Reply

    • gra gra says:

      12:38pm | 04/09/11

      Don’t you dare call Abbott, Howard, and Co Marxists. Despicable person!

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:30pm | 04/09/11

      First up they are asylum seekers. They have every right to come to Australia & apply for refugee status. If they are accepted, as we are told almost 100% are, they can & do get jobs. Their time on Centrelink Payments compared to many others here is short for they are desperate to make a go of it on their own. - some perfectly able-bodied, healthy men & women born in Australia manage to manipulate things so they are on those benefits for life. I know of one family who have two State Housing units. They have 5 or may be even now 6 children between them. They have a hidden door between the two units so the kids are in one when social services calls. They are unmarried & both claim to be Single Parents. They get paid by Centrelink accordingly. When I came across them some years ago they openly admitted that they received over $1100 per week each, got rent assistance & all the other perks. So let’s not put all refugees into the “Bludger Basket” on their own.
      The pollies have done their fear & hatred inducing jobs well.
      Put the entire issue of people arriving by boat into perspective. How many would-be refugees actually arrive here by leaky boat every year? If memory serves it is somewhere between 6000-7000.
      Compare that with the already over-populated country of Italy.
      They have been getting that many in a couple of days, week after week after week! Most don’t stay but want to go to France or Germany, both of those countries are full to over-flowing.
      I do agree with an earlier writer that the world should be concentrating on making the countries from which all these people are fleeing stop their nonsense & start getting their countries in order so that people don’t want to leave or feel they must leave in order to live & give their children a good education & make their way in the world.
      Sadly this won’t happen because the politicians don’t want it to happen.

      Reply

    • Outraged says:

      03:37pm | 04/09/11

      Instead of “tsk-tsking” Australia for not accepting LGBTQIABC (did I forget anymore letters?) refugees, why not campaign for Malaysia to decriminialize homosexuality so the citizens dont have to flee the country in the first place!

      Reply

    • Fromage67 says:

      01:07pm | 05/09/11

      Point 1. We are supposedly a christian country. There is no leeway in the bible for kicking people when they are down. We have to morally and legally do everything we can to help.

      Point 2. Australia gets a couple of thousand refugees arrive every year. Imagine the whining we’d get if we had a couple of HUNDRED THOUSAND like the European countries have to deal with.

      Seriously it’s not an issue, except to xenophobes. And before anyone makes a comment on this issue, perhaps you should consider how WE GOT HERE in the first place.

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      04:37pm | 05/09/11

      Actually, we’re constitutionally required to be a secular country… And there’s plenty of leeway in the Bible to do practically anything you want if you go and find an appropriate passage (particularly in the Old Testament, which is still canon).

      Point 2 is fair enough.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed