Punch on: Friday review 13/01/2012

Robert S McCormick says:

08:29am | 13/01/12

Acotrel,
You forget that it was another truly Great Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser who opened the doors to allowing all those 10s of 1000s of South East Asians, particularly those traumatised by the Vietnam War & more particularly those from Laos & Cambodia who were illegally, secretly bombed & Napalmed by the US under the direct orders of the War Criminal US President Richard Nixon.
This resulted in all those wonderful people being allowed to settle here. Yes, there have been problems but then there always have been when huge numbers of people with different cultures have come here.
I well remember when the influx of Italians, Greeks, Turks & later other Middle Eastern peoples came to Australia. Yes, there were the so-called ghettoes but that gathering together of the clans was natural, safety in numbers, people coming to a whole new way of life needed those gatherings until they had settled in & got used to the new ways. There were problems then too but gradually they subsided & Australia was the beneficiary. Initially the authoritiesback in the 1940s,50s tried to get new settlers “New Australians” (what a wonderful name) to abandon their old customs, cultures. That,deservedly, failed & we have benefitted beyond belief

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:54am | 13/01/12

John Howard started financial deregulation? pretty sure it was Hawke in the 80s and Howard as treasurer in the 80 was pretty bad, was it not?

old fart says:

09:04am | 13/01/12

john howard planned it, it was never implemented.  Hawke took up where he left off

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:09am | 13/01/12

Somebody has been giving the LNP member too much drugs…..

acotrel says:

04:18pm | 13/01/12

They are Tony Abbott’s words out of his book titled ‘Battle Lines’ .

Parlay says:

07:37am | 13/01/12

“they say da boides is on da wing, but how can that be when da wing is on da boides!”

Ben C says:

08:27am | 13/01/12

So six-inch TimmyB is safe from you now nossy?

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:55am | 13/01/12

Don’t be scared by the bullets Nossy, it builds character!

jay-ded says:

09:51am | 13/01/12

Enjoy the boat outing nossy.  Glad you’re not moving to sidinee - you know that Qld owns the sun… 

seanr says:

10:20am | 13/01/12

We’re happy to keep you here nossy, even if it is in the far south of Queensland

TChong says:

07:28am | 13/01/12

Greast stuff Macca!
Sport beats poiltics.
Lyon or Starc ? Both the lads should get a go with 2 tests to remaining.- the bowling line up is currently spoilt by choice.
India cant play any worse.
I expect that after this series defeat, the Indian Team will go nationalist , so Fletcher will go, but with so many Big Bash teams around, he will still be coaching somewhere.
Cheers Macca-  heres to an intersting test, but one which will see the series go 3 up.
“,Cricket - more than a game….”

Parlay says:

07:39am | 13/01/12

Test matches don’t make it to day five these days (rarely to day four)...just saying.

MattyC says:

08:31am | 13/01/12

Lyon for me because i dont think that 2 changes in a winning team is fair.

Also looking for a big score from Swampy Marsh Jnr. He is a better bat than the last 2 digs

Hopefully the loss to NZ was the bottom and that the team begins to climb back up the rankings

Ben C says:

08:38am | 13/01/12

We used four pacemen in Perth last year to maximum effect - heck, even Mitchell Johnson got some wickets. And given that India have been extremely suspect against our pace attack on this tour, and Lyon’s lack of success in this series (more to do with the fact that India are masters at playing spin), Starc should be in the team.

Aitch B says:

08:39am | 13/01/12

@Macca and Chongy

Hear, hear….. bring it on!!!

I’m even thinking of feigning illness at work so I can go home and watch it!

I’m with you, Macca. In spite of his recent T20 success I don’t think Starc is ‘there’ as a test bowler just yet in spite of the fact that he’s new to it. On the other hand, we have a competent spinner in Clarke and a potentially useful change-up bowler in Hussey so do we need a specialist spinner?

If it was my decision I’d go with Lyon - especially if there’s plenty of bounce in the wicket. He has a good top spinner that could ‘kick’ quite alarmingly.

Knemon says:

09:14am | 13/01/12

@ Macca - Go with Starc…four quicks on a green top against the feeble curry munchers will wrap it up inside four days…if the pitch goes as you say then Clarke will have a field day, he could walk on water at the minute. As for Fletcher, he will get the flick at the end of this series.

Macca says:

10:19am | 13/01/12

So much Cricket Banter! And clearly the opinions are divided with 2 votes a piece. Only an hour or so to go before we will find out.

Looks like no-one is giving India a chance of making it to the 5th day, let alone a victory.

Needless to say I am so excited I just wee’d a little bit

Ando says:

11:01am | 13/01/12

On a side note did anyone see Stuart MacGills celebration after his catch. Wasn’t he fired up, I watched it over and over

Ben C says:

12:00pm | 13/01/12

@ Ando

MacGill looks like the typical retired professional sportsperson - grey and a fair bit heavier.

But yes, the man can still hold a scowl.

AFR says:

02:33pm | 13/01/12

At lunch break on day one, it looks like another Indian capitulation. Must have been all those beers drunk on the pitch last night

Tim says:

07:05am | 13/01/12

Funny that ATM will even resort to supporting smelly hippies to attack Julia gillard.

Karen by the Sea says:

08:06am | 13/01/12

Read the article and agree that with the ineffective and incompetent PM that we have, no one internationally let alone the Japanese are going to give Australia any respect. How many refugee boats from Indo have already breached our boarders in the last few weeks?

andy says:

08:54am | 13/01/12

If only Abbott was PM and had his magical boatphone by his side.

Anubis says:

09:19am | 13/01/12

So Gillard is not just an ineffective joke in this country, she is now considered as low as dog crap internationally. Way to go Jules. Do the nation a favor and call an election so we can kick some of you lying overpaid scum out (Labor, Liberal and Greens).

Australia needs a fresh crop of pollies - this lot have been in the trough for too long.

Matt says:

10:12am | 13/01/12

Its a shame that in years to come Gillard won’t be remembered as the first female PM, she will be remembered as one of the worst PM’s of all time.  Pity we didn’t think more carefully when electing the first female PM into the record books.  If we wanted a hopeless red head we should have elected ginger ninja Pauline pants down. At least she would have stopped the boats!  Just on boats, the government isn’t publicising that 90% of illegal immigrants/assylum seekers come her by plane.  Maybe if we had a real leader (if there is such a thing when it comes to pollies) they would grow a set and force Indonesia to do something about it before they fuel em up, give them an aussie mobile and point them in the direction of Australia and say when you see land just call 000 and someone will come and get you.  Pathetic!

neo says:

11:59am | 13/01/12

Pretty ridiculous innit, the Navy and the Feds should have been dispatched quick fast to arrest the border breachers, and then it’s welcome to the great Australian legal system. You may not get a very harsh punishment, but you will lose half your life before your matter even gets to Court.

Simmo says:

12:31pm | 13/01/12

Nobody cares about this but the right and left wing fringe groups. On this you are united.

acotrel says:

04:23pm | 13/01/12

@Karen
‘with the ineffective and incompetent PM that we have, no one internationally let alone the Japanese are going to give Australia any respect. ‘

Julia is the most competent PM we have had since John Curtin !

Against the Man says:

04:55pm | 13/01/12

......and yet acotrel can’t explain why she has had a whole YEAR of record LOW polling…..and yet acotrel can’t tell us why she is competent. Is it the carbon tax the majority doesn’t want or her mess up of the asylum seeker issue or maybe her stellar job in health care reform? Too funny

Gordo says:

08:11pm | 13/01/12

Acrotel,
Comparing Gillard with Curtin shows you are really in need of help.
Go get some for your own sake.

Shane* says:

07:25am | 13/01/12

Well considering most of them had already spent 12 months or more behind bars with no charge, I would say a suspended sentence is in order?

Tell me, Gratuitous Adviser, what would you do if after 20 months living in the world’s crappiest school camp (only with no light at the end of the tunnel for release)? Would you try and get a little attention drawn to your cause?

Erick says:

07:42am | 13/01/12

@Shane* - If I was a genuine refugee, I’d be grateful that I was safe, sheltered and well-fed - without having to pay for any of it!

If I was a selfish bludger exploiting an archaic treaty in order to steal from my hosts, I’d riot, set fire to buildings, and attack firemen.

Parlay says:

07:52am | 13/01/12

@Shane

They should be deported for committing crimes in this country.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:57am | 13/01/12

Im pro refugee and immigration, but the people who burn items and commit crimes whilst in detention should be put in jail and be deported once complete.

Shane* says:

09:17am | 13/01/12

Wow, Erick, I applaud you saintly patience. Could you please lend some of your knowledge to mental health experts, since they seem unable to answer such a simple question: How exactly should we lock up young people for years on end without subjecting them to harm? I suppose it’s worth it though, to weed out the <10% who are eventually found to be non-genuine refugees.

Parlay, I might agree with you, if they had access to an open trial. If they were brought before a court and found guilty, fine… we should deport them to somewhere their life is not in danger. I have no problem with that. However, the chances of an open trial for an asylum seeker are slim-to-none, since that would provide monumential embarassment and international condemnation for the Australian Government. Can you imagine it? A 17 year old Afghan kid on the stand describing how he’s spent years locked away after fleeing the Taliban? How would that look?

“Yes, I threw a tile from the roof. Your government robbed me of an adolescence. Consider it even.”

Sarah says:

09:41am | 13/01/12

@Shane

That’s unrealistic! If I had escaped from my home country that was war-torn and my life and the lives of those I love were in GENUINE DANGER and I made it to Australia and was housed, fed, taken care of and given a whole heap of crap for free - I’d be sitting back laughing!

Think about that.. Those fools who are sewing their lips together and screaming, rioting and carrying on like utter pork chops’ demanding to be let out - should be let out. All the way back to their home nation.

If you gave them that option - watch the fire die out of them then. These fools are playing you and you’re falling for it, hook line and sinker

Erick says:

10:00am | 13/01/12

@Shane* - I really don’t care what excuses you put up. Violent criminals are violent criminals, and should be expelled from this country.

I do, however, agree that extended detention of asylum seekers is wrong. Boat people should all be deported immediately, no exceptions. If they can get on a boat from Indonesia, they are not refugees - full stop.

TRBNGR* says:

10:03am | 13/01/12

@ Shane*

Maybe they should have gone about emigrating the right way. They wouldn’t have found themselves in the situation they are currently in if they did.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

10:14am | 13/01/12

Paul Lucas, the QLD Attorney General makes a Punch contribution today titled “We need to be careful so all are equal under the law” with the theme being that using the defence “the gay guy approached me” to mitigate the crime of assault should not be used in QLD.

I am not interested in the subject matter of Paul Lucas’s contribution other than the QLD ALP is obviously after the gay vote at the moment.  I am interested that a QLD ALP Minister made the statement “We need to be careful so all are equal under the law” as it is so similar to what the ALP Federal Prime Minister and the ALP Immigration Minister said at the time of the Villawood riots.  My point is, what happened considering “We need to be careful so all are equal under the law”? is obviously ALP policy as they all use this one liner, when convenient.

AdamC says:

10:31am | 13/01/12

Shane*, please be a little less silly and naive. Asylum seekers aren’t stupid, they understand the process of seeking asylum. Prolonged detention is usually part of the deal. The reality is that the prospect of resettlement in Australia is enough of a lure to prompt them to bear the cost and risk of seeking asylum.

It is possible that many may come to regret their decision, but that does not mean the Australian government has ‘stolen their adolescence’. What absolute garbage.

Shane* says:

10:40am | 13/01/12

@Sarah, If you were “sitting back laughing” after a few years of detention, irrespective of the undoubtedly palatial detention centre you’d be kept in, chances are excellent it’d be manic laughter/mental illness rather than genuine happiness.

@ Erick. I’m not defending violence, but if you genuinely believe that violent criminals should be deported (and you probably would not want the same thing to happen to violent Aus citizens) then you clearly are a strong believer in the power of a nation’s sovereignty. And Australia’s sovereignty is central to the whole asylum seeker issue. As signatories to the “archaic treaty” you mentioned earlier, Australia has a legal obligation to accept asylum seekers from wherever they came, regardless of stopovers. That legal obligation is part and parcel of our state’s sovereignty. If we start ignoring our international obligations, we give others the right to do the same. How the hell can we decry human rights abuses overseas when we are committing human rights abuses in Australia? Sovereignty is everything. It’s why we get pissed at Israel stealing passports… it’s why half of Africa is a mess… it’s why citizenship matters at all.

Never mind the fact that, as I mentioned, over 90% of ‘boat people’ are found to be genuine refugees. Apparently we should deport them anyway? You’d probably argue that the criteria is too generous. That’s a totally different argument to how we treat the people who do get here, only you can’t see that.

@TRBGNR* I hope you reserve the same level of contempt for the British and Irish Visa overstayers who outnumber boat people 10 to 1. They’re not doing things the right way either. Your attitude seems to be ‘Screw ‘em… they jumped a queue (that either doesn’t exist or is so long it would take them 200 years to reach the front) so they reap what they sow!”

And what was that about two wrongs not making a right? How about Australia mans up and does the right thing. So what if they jumped your all-powerful queue. They would’ve died waiting for that queue to get shorter. Are you seriously going to judge them for doing whatever was needed to reach a safer life, as if you wouldn’t do precisely the same thing? Oh, that’s right, congratulations, you won the genetic lottery to be born in a country like Australia.

Shane* says:

10:54am | 13/01/12

@AdamC, actually prolonged detention is NOT usually part of the deal. Most onshore asylum seekers arrive by plane with a visa, then apply for refugee status. They don’t get locked up. It seems only boat people get locked up.

I wold understand detention centres a lot more if we had a flood of boat people and nowhere else to put them, but European countries accept many more asylum seekers every year, so does the US, so does the UK, and they use detention as a last resort. We have a trickle coming in by comparison.

“Oh they’re expecting it, and that makes it OK.” Rock solid argument, by the way.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

11:14am | 13/01/12

Hi Shane
Since you like quoting statistics and seem to having been blessed with great knowledge as per “Never mind the fact that, as I mentioned, over 90% of ‘boat people’ are found to be genuine refugees “, please advise what % of the Villawood detainees that wrecked the place, risked the lives of police and firemen and a few SERCO employees are now safely in the wider community and please advise the % of the wider community that could get away with the same thing. 

By the By: We can not even manage our own detainees as SERCO is a British company that is slowly taking over every administrative job that the pathetic Australian Governments (both creeds) can not supervise.  Gee our pollies are worth the 40% pay rise and when is the next election (State/Federal-I do not care).

Yuri says:

11:42am | 13/01/12

@Shane*
There is a big difference between visa overstayers and illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants are ‘illegal’ because coming via boat without a passport is an illegal method of entry. Coming in by plane with a visa in-hand is a perfectly legal method of entry.

Also, there are ~60,000 visa overstayers IN TOTAL, most of which have been here for many years (decades in some cases). Boat people show up at a rate of 3,000-5,000 PER YEAR; you cannot equate the two.

Another point - None of the boat people are fleeing from persecution in Indonesia. They get to the relatively safe country of Indonesia (usually via legal methods, with visas) and then choose to enter Australia via an illegal means. I think it says a lot about pull factors that people who are safe (and not being persecuted) in Indonesia are willing to risk their lives to illegally enter Australia.

AdamC says:

11:46am | 13/01/12

Shane*, my observation is not an ‘argument’, it is a statement of reality. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat go through a fundamentally different immigration process than those that arrive by plane. For obvious reasons, it is much more difficult for a Hazara Afghan to obtain an Australian tourist visa than it is for a Chinese dissident. Apart from asylum-seeker advocates like youself, nobody regards asylum seekers who arrive by areoplane and boatpeople as being comparable or equivalent.

Given that prospective boatpeople are usually aware that they will be detained, I was making the point that nobody ‘stole’ anyone’s adolescence. Rather, the asylum seeker may have traded his adolescence for the chance of an adulthood in Australia.

I actually don’t have a problem with asylum seekers. They are simply responding to the incentives countries like Australia provide them by holding out the prospect of resettelement for boatpeople. This incentive should be removed.

neo says:

12:02pm | 13/01/12

Shane, they aren’t detained for no reason. They’re detained for illegally breaching Australian borders. Whether they are genuine refugees or not is what is being decided in the meanwhile, but seeing how they aren’t happy to be safe and fed, I’m guessing they just came for a better life. Which is totally fine, only instead of paying a smuggler, they should have paid an immigration agent.

TRBNGR says:

12:11pm | 13/01/12

Mate cut out the Reductio ad absurdum and I’ll happily discuss, until then you get nothing from me as I have no time for people that cannot be mature about differing opinions.

John smythe says:

12:20pm | 13/01/12

Agree with you there TRBNGR.

The differences between visa overstayers and economic shoppers was outlined quite well by commenters in that horrendous article accusing the reader base of being racist red-necked xenophobes.

For ThePunch at least, I think this has been discussed beyond necromancy, the topic is that dead.

Shane* says:

12:36pm | 13/01/12

@Yuri and Neo.

I had assumed we’d all moved past the point of calling them illegal immigrants? After all, the courts have decided that they’re not illegal, the government/opposition do not refer to them as illegal, newspaper columnists are sanctioned if they call them illegal, etc etc etc.

FACT: THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

@AdamC, Well I suppose we can disagree on whether boatpeople and planepeople are comparable, but I find your being OK with an Afghan “trading” their adolescence for adulthood very worrying.

@TRBNGR, mate, your first statement was far from mature, so I responded with sarcasm. You argued that they got into the situation themselves by not emigrating the “right way.” Do you not understand that there is often no such thing as a “right way” or that it involves waiting, quite literally, decades for resettlement? Educated yourself, then get back to me.

Honestly, I can see I’m banging my head against a brick wall with most people here. But nonetheless, I want to highlight why I defend asylum seekers:

1. They have a legal right to be here. Like it or not, it’s true. They have a legal right to apply for asylum, whether they stop in Indonesia or not. Australia is a signatory to a treaty under international law. Argue about the criteria of acceptance if you wish, but that is not the same argument.

2. Australia treats them OK-ish, but the long delays are unacceptable considering the tiny number of people we’re processing in comparison to other countries.

3. Any reasonable person would attempt something drastic after years of detention with no end in sight, Australians included. Don’t kid yourself - you too.  The fact that we’re born/bred here makes us incredible fortunate and it is pure selfishness and/or racism to deny the same to others who just happened to be born in Iraq. I only play the race card because I find the hatred reserved for boat people to be completely disproportionate compared with (generally white) Visa Overstayers who are more costly to our community than boat people who live and work here.

neo says:

12:47pm | 13/01/12

No, no, they are illegal immigrants, no point sugar coating it. They attempted to immigrate illegally, if you find a better term for them, do chip in.

Shane* says:

02:17pm | 13/01/12

@Neo

From the Australian Government Fact Sheet (And I’d think they have pretty decent lawyers looking at it, wouldn’t you?):

“Asylum seekers, irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’ does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa….

...

The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. As at 30 June 2010, it was estimated that there were about 53 900 visa overstayers residing in Australia.”

AdamC says:

02:47pm | 13/01/12

“@AdamC, Well I suppose we can disagree on whether boatpeople and planepeople are comparable, but I find your being OK with an Afghan “trading” their adolescence for adulthood very worrying.”

Err, Shane*, I certainly am not OK with Afghans trading their adolescence for resettlement in Australia. That is why I would like to remove the incentive for them to do so. It is you who is clearly OK with it, based upon your comments here. And, yes, I find that very worrying too!

neo says:

03:04pm | 13/01/12

Oh man, us lawyers always make things more vague than they need to be

Whatever name you give them, illegal immigrants, unlawful non-citizens, immigration queue jumpers, the substance is still the same.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

06:17am | 14/01/12

Posted at 7pm last night:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-13/men-refused-bail-over-villawood-riot/3772148
It goes well to remember what happened during that period in our history and what the future may well be.

At least the issue has not been swept under the carpet, as I wrongfully suspected

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

08:54am | 13/01/12

So what, at least they weren’t alive having their heads sawn off with a dull knife while someone video taped it.

Sarah says:

09:43am | 13/01/12

Its sickening - but that’s war. When you send human being’s in and train them to fight and to hate and to be conditioned to slaughter - then that’s what they’re going to do.

Both sides are as guilty as each other. Kurisu Sonsaku summed that up well - the Taliban have committed atrocities just as heartbreaking as the Allied soldiers

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:27am | 13/01/12

So both of you are comparing 1st world civilized people to the Taliban?

War isn’t pissing on people, dogs piss on people.

TheRealDave says:

10:33am | 13/01/12

No its not acceptable. Its disgusting, morally repugnant and abhorent. Thes emen are suppsoe dto be professional soldiers representing their country. If they can idenitfy the people responsible they should prosecute them to the fullest extend possible under Military Justice. And every other person wearing that uniform would fully agree with that.

Now, with that said. We all know the usual wankers are going to jump on that same old bandwagon and make this out to be systemic (although they’ll say ‘systematic’ because they are too stupid to use the proper word) of the knuckledragging culture of the Military.  No its not. Never has been. Nor, more importatnly, is it indicative of the practices, training and ethos of the Australian Army - not that it won’t stop the same wankers from alluding that it is.

Find them, prosecute them. But don’t go tarring everyone in uniform with the same brush…...like you normally do.

Parlay says:

10:48am | 13/01/12

Completely happy with their actions…no one reports on what the Taliban do.  Why is that?

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

10:58am | 13/01/12

This has been happening since Achilles gave his mate Hector a couple of victory laps round Troy. To the victor go the spoils.

neo says:

12:24pm | 13/01/12

Disgusting behaviour. Clearly these mongrels are there to kill people for fun and have a laugh while pissing on corpses, and not “free the country from oppression”. Sick pigs.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:34pm | 13/01/12

@Parlay

I see it all the time, you must live in a different world.

Parlay says:

09:18pm | 13/01/12

@Simon

Please point us to the articles where the Taliban have degraded dead US soldiers.  Let’s hope you are not naive enough to believe it doesn’t happen?

Aitch B says:

08:46am | 13/01/12

@Kerryn

Yeah…. I’m warming to it too.

Whuch footy season… AFL OR NRL? The AFL NAB Cup starts in 5 weeks so not long for us AFL nuts to wait.

What can I say….. GO CATS IN 2012!!

I suspect Chongy might have something to say in response to that last bit *

TChong says:

10:20am | 13/01/12

AitchB
The Malthouse / Buckley soap opera still makes me cringe with embarrasment.
The Pies should finnish Top 5.
Carlton v Geelong or Hawks for the biggun .

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:33am | 13/01/12

C’mon Colliewobbles!!

Buckley will be interesting though, Malthouse had a sense of fear about him, cant see that in Buckley.

Slothy says:

12:19pm | 13/01/12

The AFL season hasn’t started yet? But I’ve already lost my boyfriend to goddamn Dream Team research! Once the season actually starts I may as well just be single until September.

Kerryn says:

01:23pm | 13/01/12

AFL season of course!  GO LIONS!

5 weeks too long. *sniffle*

MarkS says:

01:39pm | 13/01/12

Looking forward to Buckley doing a Crazy Vozzie. The meltdown from the Collie fans would be lots of fun. Eddies head might really explode this time. Also Carltank making top four but failing to win a final.

Erick says:

08:36am | 13/01/12

I remember a few years ago, an SAS man in East Timor shot and killed a militant. He was alleged to have kicked the dead body.

There was outrage and demands that he be court-martialled. Apparently it’s fine to kill someone, but don’t you dare be rude to them!

This particular story is just the normal America-bashing. Taliban do worse things every day, but nobody cares about that.

Ben C says:

08:42am | 13/01/12

@ Mr Pastry

Not everyone likes their showers to be golden.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:58am | 13/01/12

Your one strange individual.

If it was the Taliban pissing over American corpses you would be spitting chips.

The righteous one says:

09:11am | 13/01/12

probably because most cultures treat bodies with respect, and peeing on them is not really respectful.  Having said that, one has to wonder if that disrespect would extend to live afghanis as well and what the overall attitude toward Afghanis is by American troops.  You may not agree with Taliban policies and objectives, but you have to respect the guy who is prepared to put their life on the line for their belief. 
I personally, would be horrified if australian troops had done it, but we respect our opponents.

how would you feel if australian corpses were disrespected?

Anubis says:

09:22am | 13/01/12

@ Simon from Lakemba - I have to agree with a post above - at least they weren’t sawing the taliban heads off with a blunt knife while videotaping (a favorite of the taliban and other radical islamic fundamentalists)

Blind Freddy says:

09:24am | 13/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba

Especially if the Afghans had travelled to the US and done it on US soil.

Peter says:

09:31am | 13/01/12

Mr Pastry and Erick, i’m afraid I miss your point.  Are you saying it is ok to piss on dead bodies or are you saying we should not be killing them in the first place?

Erick says:

09:55am | 13/01/12

@Peter - I am saying that the act of pissing on someone’s dead body is utterly trivial, in comparison to the act of killing that person in the first place.

I don’t care whose dead body it is. Dead people don’t care either.

This is, as usual, just the anti-Americsn hate brigade doing its hysterical screaming thing.

Mr Pastry says:

10:23am | 13/01/12

@The righteous one - it would be preferable to respect people before killing them.  Killing someone is the ultimate disrespect, merely peeing on someone would be down the list with getting someone to eat a meal made with dog food or receiving a Maccas with spittle in.  The peeing is irrelavent when you’ve just killed them.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:30am | 13/01/12

As I said in response to the link I posted above regarding this.

You must have serious issues if you are comparing first world civilised people representing the west to the Taliban.

Its like saying “oh but miss he did it!”

TChong says:

10:30am | 13/01/12

Eck as Simon from lakemba , Pete, TRO ask
What would your reaction be if a Afghan nationalist took a whizz on the body of OZ soldier?
Cool with that?

Kendra says:

10:31am | 13/01/12

Women wouldn’t do this sort of thing.
This is the type of disrespect and aggro that is typical of men.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:32am | 13/01/12

@Erick

“I don’t care whose dead body it is. Dead people don’t care either”

So if people pissed over you?

TheRealDave says:

10:44am | 13/01/12

@Erick, no its not about ‘American Hate mongers’ or the like. I respnded as to my thoughts on the issue in the issue a few comments higher up, as ther eseem to be two so far on thsi issue. But in essence, this is a disgusting morally repugnant act - no matter who did it. Further it disrespects every other single man and woman wears that uniform as once again they will be dragged down by this barabarous act as another case of ‘guilt by association’. And to a lesser extent this will also pass onto our Diggers as the usual crowd of muppets only see a bunch of ‘murderous knuckledraggers that couldn’t get a real job’ etc.

The US needs to find these morons and prosecute them to the fullest extent possible. But I think they’ll talk tough but the end result will be a Dishonerable Discharge at best. Which is actually a big thing in the States, even if it doesn’t sound like much here.

AdamC says:

11:02am | 13/01/12

Geez, this ‘issue’ seems to be getting a lot of attention today!

I don’t really think there is much disagreement about it, fundamentally. Aside from Erick, I think everyone agrees that it is wrong to urinate on the corpse of a fallen enemy. The solders who did so should be counselled and, potentially, penalised as appropriate.

Of course, there is also no reason for any silly hysterics. This was a relatively minor lapse in judgement by some individual soldiers that, nonetheless, potentially could be used in enemy propaganda. The ridiculously disproportionate attention the matter is getting merely feeds into the hands of terrorists and extremist killers, who, as we are all aware, do much worse things to people than urinating on them once they are dead.

TChong says:

11:26am | 13/01/12

Kendra
Ever heard of ex corporal Lynndie England?
May not have been taking a whizz, but hardly commendable, was she?

Yuri says:

11:56am | 13/01/12

@ Kendra
It’s not that women would never do something disrespectful like this, it is just a lot less likely they would have the opportunity, for two reasons:
1. It is much more difficult for a woman to urinate on their ‘kill’, especially in public.
2. It is considerably less likely that a woman would be on the frontline and actually kill someone.

Erick says:

12:16pm | 13/01/12

@Simon from Lakemba - Read my comment. I couldn’t care less if someone pissed on my dead body. Dead people don’t care. That’s because they’re dead. Which part of the word “dead” don’t you understand?

@AdamC - I didn’t say there was nothing wrong with urinating on a dead body. I said that it was utterly trivial compared to killing that person in the first place.

@Kendra - Thank you for the predictable outburst of random misandry. You help to demonstrate the discrimination against men that is rampant in our sick society.

Max Power says:

12:23pm | 13/01/12

I agree it is wrong to piss on the bodies of your enemy.  Instead,  we should severe their heads,  put them on a spike and line   them along the major roads in Afghanistan,  to serve as a deterrent to   would be IED makers.

Mr Pastry says:

12:24pm | 13/01/12

I note the comments and I see logic plays no part, only “wot if us guys got pissed on”.  So in future when using a public urinal and there are other attendees present, I shall gun them all down lest I splash them with sterile urea, I wouldn’t want to offend anyone..

neo says:

12:31pm | 13/01/12

The Taliban do a lot worse, so it’s ok for us all to stoop down to their level? Is that your argument Erick? Usually you make quite a bit of sense, but not this time man.

You kill them because you are fighting them. Pissing on their dead bodies serves no purpose other than humouring the sick bastards. Court martial the lot of them, men without honour are not men.

Erick says:

12:58pm | 13/01/12

@neo - Learn to read. Read my comments.

Learn to understand. Understand my comments.

Thank you.

neo says:

02:52pm | 13/01/12

Don’t back out of the shit you said by questioning my comprehension skills, Erick.

I’ll quote you:
“This particular story is just the normal America-bashing. Taliban do worse things every day, but nobody cares about that.”

And I ask you again, just because “Taliban do worse things every day”, does that make it permissible for US troops to also turn into mongrels?

Erick says:

06:28am | 14/01/12

@neo - “The Taliban do a lot worse, so it’s ok for us all to stoop down to their level?”

No. We have never stooped to their level, and hopefully never will. Pissing on a dead body is not even close to being as bad as the things the Taliban routinely do. If you think there is any moral equivalency at all, you should contemplate your system of values.

“Is that your argument Erick?”

No, it’s just something you made up.

Erick says:

09:21am | 13/01/12

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

AdamC says:

09:40am | 13/01/12

I agree that it is a distasteful act to urinate on the bodies of dead enemies, but my main concern would be that this could be used as propaganda by the enemy. As such, the release of the video is a bigger problem than the actions themselves.

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

12:21pm | 13/01/12

“committing atrocities comes as no surprise”

No, taking a wizz on dead insurgents is stupid and should be dealt with under the US UCMJ.

No my little bedwetter, sawing off someones head with a dull knife whilst taping it is an atrocity and doing this to kidnapped civilians is barbaric murder.

I’m suspecting you went to the Gillard school of ‘hyperbowl’ regarding the ‘taliband’.

MarkS says:

12:33pm | 13/01/12

Comparing true atrocities like My Lai to this undisciplined & stupid behaviour devalues the lives of the murdered people at Mai Li.

Yes the Marines behaviour was disgusting, but so is trying to compare Mai Li to this behaviour.

neo says:

12:37pm | 13/01/12

All I can say is, the USA is doing a good job making friends with the local population, as always.

If this is used as propaganda to recruit more Taliban fighters, it’s no one’s fault but those stupid ass soldiers who have shamed their uniform.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:46pm | 13/01/12

Agree with MarkS there, My Lai was an atrocity. No way can your compare it with a stupid act from a few individuals.

TheRealDave says:

03:34pm | 13/01/12

See, one minor incident, no matter how abhorent - and you get the muppets jumping on their anti-military bandwagon…because the actions of a few morons apparently represents the behaviour of the wider professional military….. *sigh*

Idiot

TimB says:

09:46am | 13/01/12

Congrats mate. It is pretty crazy. I went from a crappy box of a granny flat where I was paying $160 a week rent (was soon to jump to $200), to (on average over the past two years) about double that in mortgage payments. BUT, had I decided to move from the granny flat into yet another rental property similar to what I ended up buying, I would have been paying at least $300-350 a week in rent.
Given that rental costs can be equivalent to or in some cases more than a mortgage, buying is a no-brainer in many circumstances.

I hear you on the stress of making an offer though. It freaked me out when I went through the whole process. Have I not offered enough? Too much? You second guess yourself about the suitability of the property, all sorts of things. I went with my parents to check out a whole bunch of places, and found a single bedroom flat of decent size that I thought was pretty good….But thought they were asking a little too much.

So I put down my offer & had it soundly rejected. I was unable to bring myself to bring my offer up another 10K that they wanted, so I passed…and for the best as it turns out. The place I ended up getting was only $5K more than what the other place was going for BUT it was way bigger, and far better located.

It’s kind of amazing. You sign those papers and commit yourself to years of bank debt, but all the stress and uncertainty of the previous few weeks or months of property hunting just disappears.
And you’re left with the knowledge that this place is *yours*. No more arbitrary rent rises, inspections, fighting just to get maintenance issues sorted out. All the crap that comes with dealing with landlords, gone. You’re in control now.

Best thing I ever did. Hope it works out as well for you.

jay-ded says:

10:10am | 13/01/12

Well don dancan.  Hope your offer wins.  We used a mortgage broker as well.  By the time we finally found a house that was suitable, the pre-loan agreement had expired (lasts 6 months).  You’d have thought that he would have told us this?  Especially when we rang him the week before stating that we had finally found the house we wanted and were going to place an offer.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:39am | 13/01/12

@Dancan

In regards to the mortgage broker, did you get a pre-approval from him first? getting them to do that is a good way to test how professional they are.

Unfortunately in the industry ( I’m in Real Estate ) there are still a lot of sharks around and incompetent people. Best advice I can give to anyone is that to have your 10% deposit ready, that way a lot of the time consuming factors are already taken out, which can take up to 2 weeks.

I know where I live its cheaper to buy then rent and when I move out the property will always be covered by the rent, so leaves me in a good place.

Slothy says:

12:28pm | 13/01/12

Congrats mate, I’m finally about to move in to the house we bought more than six months ago (we had a lease and the house had tenants, so we decided to wait it out). These last few weeks have been the hardest - with the image of a proper three bedroom house on the horizon, our tiny little flat feels about the size of a cardboard box. Only 3 weeks until I can stop keeping my bike in the bedroom!

I went with a mortgage broker too and had a great experience. He made things so much easier - it was the damn conveyancers we picked that gave us headaches. If you know somebody who can give you a recommendation, TAKE IT. Unfortunately I’ve never been able to get a positive rec, just an ever increasing list of firms to avoid.

Erick says:

10:06am | 13/01/12

Hilarious! Thanks for finding this.

holden says:

06:07pm | 13/01/12

Erick is a teenager?  Well, that explains so much, and leaves so much more left unexplained. Thanks iad, from all of us.

Elphaba says:

10:22am | 13/01/12

I know, it’s disgusting.  It’s only a matter of time before someone gets killed…

The Australian Government needs to disassociate itself from them by ensuring that no protester will be rescued if they get into trouble.  Then they can continue to pursue and end to whaling diplomatically.

jay-ded says:

10:40am | 13/01/12

@ Elphaba.  “The Australian Government needs to disassociate itself from them by ensuring that no protester will be rescued if they get into trouble.  Then they can continue to pursue and end to whaling diplomatically.”

hahahahaha - that would mean Labor would actually have to get up off it’s collective arse and actually do something - without stuffing it up.

Not likely to happen with our current government.

I do agree however that throwing acid cans is just too stupid for words.  This is assault and they should be charged.  They can place themselves between the whales and the whalers or try and chase the whales off, but the only thing they have done is virtually declare war on the Japanese whaling fleet.  I’m just waiting to see what the Japanese government does / says about it.

Elphaba says:

10:49am | 13/01/12

Ah, jay-ded, I am an incurable optimist.

Exactly, if they want to place themselves between the whaling boats and the whales, fine.  More power to them for non-violent actions.  They at least have some recourse if the whalers respond with force and they can prove them were protesting peacefully.

But I don’t care how incensed the killing of animals makes you, there is no excuse for endangering people’s lives in the process.  We need to stop thinking it’s ok to impose our cultural differences onto others.  They might make no sense, but it’s not for us to determine what they can and can’t do.  The IWC created a provision for scientific whaling.  That’s what the Japanese say they do.  If they’re exploiting that (ok, they ARE exploiting it), then it’s up to the IWC to close the loophole.

Tim says:

11:22am | 13/01/12

Elphaba,
The funny thing is the amount of people who think the IWC is there to prevent whaling.
They’re not.

I can just imagine the apoplectic fit these Sea Shepherders will have in a few years time when the IWC start allowing commercial whaling of Minkes in the southern ocean again.

Elphaba says:

11:36am | 13/01/12

@Tim, agreed, I don’t think the IWC can actually come up with anything.  International law has always been the weakest arm of the law.  They were the ones who came up with the ‘scientific whaling’ thing though.  They can close the loophole, but they certainly can’t police it.

They definitely will go nuts.  I’m not a fan.  But whaling is a part of Japanes culture, and not everyone on the planet thinks the same way.  And they never will.  And clearly the Sea Shephard needs to think about their methods, because they’re not attracting much sympathy.

John smythe says:

12:27pm | 13/01/12

Not sure why Australian condones these violent acts of ecoterrorism. The entire article uses them as the source concerning whether or not the Japanese whaling vessel entered our waters or not. Complete hearsay.

They were even trying to throw lines in front of the boat Ina hope it gets caught up in the propellers.

Why are these acts of violence, endangerment, and belligerent damage allowed?

MarkS says:

12:44pm | 13/01/12

Illegal, violent & dangerous actions for a political cause by non-state parties. What is that under Australian law? Of that’s right TERRORISM.

These people are terrorists and should be treated accordingly. By the way those people funding terrorism are under Australian law also guilty.

neo says:

12:45pm | 13/01/12

Fact is, the law is in place and the Japs are breaking the law and justifying their breach with a bs excuse. The protesters’ methods may not be the best, but you can’t blame them for doing what they do, if the officials aren’t doing anything, someone has to. At least they are bringing the issue to public spotlight, and props for that.

John smythe says:

12:58pm | 13/01/12

Neo, what of the whalers, is being conducted illegally?

John smythe says:

12:59pm | 13/01/12

Neo, what part of the whalers’ actions was illegal?

neo says:

01:14pm | 13/01/12

The part where they are whaling for commercial and not for scientific reasons? You can’t really blame the fishermen, it’s their government’s duty to put a ban on commercial whaling, but them Japs just love eating whales I guess.

Tim says:

01:18pm | 13/01/12

Neo,
can you point me to the laws that the Japanese are breaking?
No? didn’t think so.

And even if they were breaking the law, how does that in any way excuse the Ecoterrorists actions?

As long as the whales aren’t endangered (Minke’s aren’t) then how can we possibly tell the Japanese they aren’t allowed to eat them? Massive hypocrisy.

John smythe says:

01:30pm | 13/01/12

Hmmmm….so the roo culling that was done way back, was seen to be cruel and wasteful, so they allowed the roo meat to be sold to pet food companies, is completely different to passing on meat derived from research then. 

I see.

Try not to deflect from the issue at hand, Australia is condoning and harboring known ecoterrorists. Funding as well.

neo says:

01:31pm | 13/01/12

I sure can Tim. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, of which Japan is a signatory and which is administered by the International Whaling Commission. In 1982 the Commission passed a moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan objected at first, but then withdrew because the USA threatened to cut their fishing quota.

Now they are using Article VIII to justify their whaling as being for scientific purposes. But if you believe that Japan is whaling primarily for scientific purposes, you are deluding yourself. I know it, you know it, and most importantly, Japan knows it.

As for protesters, their actions are not justified, but they are very much understandable. I don’t really care about whales all that much, and it kinda pisses me off that Japan is doing this, I can only imagine how whale lovers feel.

Elphaba says:

01:41pm | 13/01/12

@neo, but that is a reflection on the IWC.  They created a loophole for Japan to exploit.  They (the Japanese) are technically not doing anything wrong.

Of course everyone knows Japan is whaling for the dinner table, not for scientific research.  And or course, it’s wrong.  But they are doing it under a guideline that the IWC created.  And it’s up to them to at least close that loophole.

JS says:

01:46pm | 13/01/12

Neo, So you can irrevocably prove they are doing NO scientific study then?

Interesting you find acts of violence, piracy, destruction acceptable, yet, find some exploitation of a law (assuming this is what they are actually doing) completely unacceptable.

JS says:

02:06pm | 13/01/12

You might like to check out
http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

Was but a simple googly to do.

Tim says:

02:43pm | 13/01/12

Neo,
Thanks for proving that what Japan are doing isn’t illegal.
That’s what you were trying to do right?

neo says:

03:31pm | 13/01/12

Oh, sure they are doing some scientific research, they wouldn’t be able to justify all their whaling if they weren’t at all, but primarily, the whales are being eaten, scientific study is somewhat of a externality from their commercial whaling. They are catching whales in ridiculous numbers, enough to facilitate scientific research for a few planets. And I don’t condone the actions of the protesters, I can see why they are pissed off though.

Elph, I agree, the IWC is not doing enough to stop them, the Article truly was written to allow genuine scientific research. Still, just because the Japs CAN do the wrong thing doesn’t mean they SHOULD. I blame Japan

neo says:

03:46pm | 13/01/12

Nope, I proved that what they are doing is illegal. Commercial whaling is illegal. Japan is whaling for commercial purposes. Thus, what they are doing is illegal.

You can believe the bs they spew about all their whaling being scientific whaling, but as I said, you would be deluding yourself.

TheRealDave says:

03:55pm | 13/01/12

1. What exactly are the Japanese doing that illegal?? Do you have specific evidence that they ar eONLY commercial hunting? Cause the UN and other relevant bodies would love to see it. They have a quota they are LEGALLY allowed to hunt each year. The Japanese infact take LESS than their quota. They take a miniscule amount of whales that are replaced thousands of times over by natural yearly births in a population that is exploding in numbers due to years of conservation and carefully managed hunting - not due to any ‘activism’ or donations to Greenpeace or Sea Shephard.
2. Norway hunts more whales a year than the Japenese - I don’t see ANY publicity about that…..which is why I think the majority of the anti-Japanese crap is merely racism in disguise ‘Yellow Peril’ kinda finished after we dropped two big bangs on them near 70 years ago people.
3. Sea Shepherd should not be allowed in our territorial waters ever, let alone be allowed to dock here. We should be boarding and taking their vessels if they do enter our waters. Keep taking their ships and selling them for scrap. Prosecute that idiot leading them and throw him and any of his arseclown mates into gaol. What they are doing is downright moronicly dangerous to peopel and property engaging in LEGALLY APPROVED activities. This is not activism or promoting animal welfare or whatever ‘Green’ thing people think they are doing, its Ecovandalism - some can quite rightly say Ecoterrorism.
4. The hunt in Australian waters? Umm…Australia and a few diehard signatories of the treaty 60 years ago are the ONLY ones who recognise this ‘territory’. You do know nearly every other nation on the planet doesn’t recognise it….hence why we have bases from the USSR and Hungary and crap on ‘our land’ and that other nations shipping and fishing enter those waters all teh time….you DID know that didn’t you?? Nah, of course you didn’t….cause you don’t really care…...its only about the ‘Japs’ and the ‘endangered’ whales isn’t it?

Facts be damned!

John smythe says:

04:47pm | 13/01/12

Excellent way to continue to prove you haven’t read up on it.

TRDs points were also covered in that link.

If we are going to be serious about our anti-terrorist laws, it’s time to clamp down on environmental terrorists as well. Freeze their accounts, confiscate their equipment and jail them.

Or were those laws only for middle eastern looking people?

These acts of anger, and violence and sheer disregard for others’ property and misuse of donations is more an affront to Australia, than a law which is not being broken.

Shame neo. Shame.

Donny says:

10:52am | 13/01/12

Everything will be fine Anubis.
To keep the faith,  I’m sure the Govt will allocate more subsidies to the “Green Schemes” , which will fix everything

neo says:

12:51pm | 13/01/12

I know huh. It’s kind of an ugly packet though, who wants to smoke something with a picture of a roo on it? I’d rather a picture of a camel

TChong says:

11:32am | 13/01/12

The israeli govt defies all common decency, the law you site is but one example.
Israel is a racist theocracy.
Any and every criticism is met with “Anti Semite”., that way issues arent discussed.

MarkS says:

12:04pm | 13/01/12

Lebensraum for the Herrenvolk equals Promised Land for the Chosen people. So Israel is in effect banning Israelites from marrying non-Israeli Palestinians. Rather like the way the Nazi state banned Germans from marrying Jews.

Given that Israel has founded on the basis of religious & racial discrimination by way of terrorism & ethnic cleansing there is nothing surprising about this story. 

“Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.” Indeed when the very idea of your state is defined on religious & racial grounds, human rights for those not of the correct religion & race is national suicide.

Apartheid, yes, there was a reason that Apartheid South Africa & Israel were very close. The West Bank & Gaza look a lot like the Bantustans created by South Africa. 

The oppressed people have in their turn become the oppressor, depressingly common behaviour.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:42pm | 13/01/12

Israel is in a funny place at the moment.

Hasidic’s are going nuts over there with their religious fanaticism and clashing with the mainstream Jews.

Then the Israelis that are born there hate the American Jews that return there to live as they think they are better then everybody else.

Wonder if that counts the Arabs that live in Israel?

stephen says:

04:19pm | 13/01/12

‘Israeli-arabs’, Madam, not Israelis ... you’re playing games.

When a Palestinian marries an Arab who is related to an Israeli, or who wants to be an Israeli and carries the garb, the result is an Arab who has everything going for him.
And having ‘everything going for him’ is not really in Israel’s interests right now.
Get it ?

MarkS says:

12:13pm | 13/01/12

@AdamC
If Israel did not define itself on the basis of racial & religious discrimination, then those security concerns would not exist.

Australia once had the same sort of security concerns, when Australia was defined as a “White Nation”, the slogan was “Australia for the White Man”, and we also made it very difficult for marriages between people when one of those people was from an undesired group. 

Israel’s security concerns arise only from their racial & religious bigotry.

As for your last sentence, utter rot.

bella starkey says:

12:17pm | 13/01/12

What on earth would be the security concerns?

Are a whole bunch on ingenious Palestinian extremists going to go out and trick some poor Israeli into marrying them just so they can then attack from within? I’m sorry Adam, but there are plenty of people who may pose a risk to Israel’s security but they aren’t specifically excluded from living with their spouse by law. This is only aimed at Palestinians, it is clearly racist.

Even if this applied to all non-Jewish spouses it would be an affront to most people, but specifically targeting Palestinians is just plain monstrous.
.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:54pm | 13/01/12

@Bella

Have you and your partner been to Israel?

@AdamC

My best friends have a few dead relatives courtesy of the Jews, so they might disagree.

Always wondered, the people that wholeheartedly support Israel what they would think if another country came and took Sydney and decided to set up camp?

Always easy to pass judgement, but we share no borders and started Australia with basically a clean slate ( after we got rid of a few Aboriginals ) so we don’t know what its like to defend out borders, religion etc.

Obviously being aggressive towards Israel doesn’t help the Palestinians cause, but killing innocent civilians for a 1st world country shouldn’t be the response.

AdamC says:

01:08pm | 13/01/12

@MarkS, I am not sure what your point is. It just seems to comprise a series of unsupported smears against Israel, and a ridiculous assertion that, if those nasty Israeli Jews stopped being so bigoted, Palestinian terrorists would stop attacking them. That is laughable. 

@Bella Stakey, actually, I would not put it past them. There is also the issue of ensuring the fair division of the land when the parties finally get around to reaching a settlement. After all, if Palestinians can move into Israel, and we can all just get along, why is there all this argy-bargy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank?

Also, sorry I didn’t manage to use the reply button. I don’t know what happened there.

MarkS says:

02:21pm | 13/01/12

@AdamC
Jews and Palestinians can live side by side. How do I know? Because they do so quite well in many places, including Australia. In fact many Israeli Jews & Palestinians get on fine with each other.

If Israel abandoned its defining concept as a Jewish state and accepted all the former peoples of Palestine as part of a new nation. Then yes all but a very small element of Palestinians & far right Jews would abandon terrorism.

But I doubt this will ever occur, unfortunately I consider it more likely than not that Israel will become more fascist & hated until somebody makes a mistake & nukes fly.

The simple fact that Israel defines itself as a Jewish State means that it is based on religious & racial discrimination. The law in Israel is different if you are Jewish, the original poster had a link to a news article about one of these laws.

Israel was founded by terrorists; the bombing of the King David Hotel is a case in point. Also Israel was founded by way of ethnic cleansing; the basic law of Israel says that any non Jewish resident of the former state of Palestine who was not in their home when Israel was founded lost their property rights. Any refugees from the deliberate violence conducted by Zionist paramilitaries, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, are not entitled to return to their homes. They remain refugees to this day. But any Jewish person can enter Israel as a matter of right under the law of return.

The Bantustans where the so called homelands that South Africa tried to tell the world where black nations. But South Africa controlled them; they were not allowed a defence force or control over their own borders or resources, South Africa took back whatever land they wanted when it suited them & South African troops continued to occupy them. They were a place to shove the unwanted. Very much like Gaza & the West Bank now & for that matter under the suggested peace plans.

It is a matter of historical record that apartheid South Africa & Israel had close diplomatic & other relations. They co-operated in nuclear bomb research. The marriage restrictions in Nazi Germany & in Australia under the white Australia policy are also a matter of historical record, as is the recent Israel’ court judgement finding their similar laws valid.

“series of unsupported smears against Israel”. Not a single thing I have said is unsupported or untrue and because they are true, they are not smears, they are instead unpleasant truths.

AdamC says:

03:09pm | 13/01/12

@Simon, your Sydney analogy is an over-simplification. Partitioning territory was a common post-colonial technique to try to address the problems of hostile ethnicities. Few of the people who decry Israel’s foundation out of former British mandate territory seem nearly so concerned abour East and West Pakistan (now Bangladesh and Pakistan) being carved from India as muslim homelands. Incidentally, as is the case with muslims in India, many Israeli Arabs manage to live quite peacefully in Israel. It is only the reverse situation that seems to cause any fuss.

I also note that Israel makes up a tiny proportion of the territory of the Arab Middle East and, unlike the Israelis who took in the Jews that were expelled from their homes by newly-independent, anti-Semitic Arab governments, the Arab states never made any effort to resettle Palestinian ‘refugees’. It was obviously much more fun to fight unsuccessful wars with Israel, one of which helped lead to the prevailing situation in the West Bank and Gaza. 

Not tht the the Palestinians themselves haven’t done their level best to ensure that the ‘occupation’, as they are wont to describe it, continues. I must say my sympathy for the Palestinian cause has diminished since they decided to use Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as an opportunity for terrorist rocket attacks, rather than to show the world they could actually govern themselves without the heavy yoke of Israeli security.

And that is a microcosm of the whole problem. As you note, it doesn’t help the Palestinians to continue to attack Israel, but they can’t seem to help themselves.

stephen says:

03:59pm | 13/01/12

That Israel wants a Jewish State, and that she is not discriminating so much as defining her national self, may be a key to how other nations - ourselves included - see their political and social impetuses.
Multiculturalism, thankfully, is obvious in every nation, (with the notable exception of Japan) but each country should have a majority of religions and cultures which underline the Law and common behaviour.
(Israel, here, may well be an example of how nations should define their own cultural well-being.)

Israel is as much entitled to her Nationalism as we are to ours.
That it has come to an enforcement which may deny the Palestinians all that they want - well, this may be as much History’s fault as much as the UN’s.

TheRealDave says:

04:17pm | 13/01/12

Israelis and Palestinians could quite peacefully live side by side, as they do around the world, including Australia. All its needs is for the world to stop allowing the Palestinian people being used as fodder in the long running Pseudo War by Syria and Iran. They are the two countries who have been keeping the death toll ticking over since the last great arse kicking of ‘73.

The Jews didn’t just march in and take what they wanted. Thats bollocks. They’ve always been in the area. Islamic propaganda would have you beleive there was not a Jew in sight until the day after WW2 ended. Utter bollocks. Following the Poms taking over during the latter stages of WW1 the area was split 75% to the ‘Palestinians’ and 25% to the Jews. The ‘Palestinians’ go ttheir homeland, right at the start, 75% of the entire land and it was called ‘Trans-Jordan’ which funnily enough put it on——> that side of the Jordan River. The mistake the Poms made was to give an Arab the throne. Of that 25% of the land the Jews were allocated, after being invaded by everyone,  the lands allocated to the Jews was whittled down again (leaving something like 17% or so of the original mandated area - so 83% was given to the ‘Palestinians’) and the West Bank and Gaza were born…funnily enough these were basically gobbled up by Jordan and Egypt the second they could - so much for caring about the ‘Palestinians’. It only became a problem after the next war when the Israelis kicked them so hard they took those lands and a hell of a lot more and embarrased all those Arab nations around them. Thats when the whole ‘oh the poor Palestinians have no homeland’ propaganda crap started for realzies. They certainly didn’t give a crap when THEY controlled the lands. And they get to conveniently ignore the fact they already own 83% or more of the original mandate and already HAVE their own homeland.

Fast forward to today. Those nations around them know they cannot militarily defeat Israel. Not a chance. Egypt and Jordan have begun to engage more with the West and pull back from Israel. Lebanon is still a basket case but under the control of terrorists, Iraq is no longer in the picture. Its all Syria and Iraq. They are the ones funding, equipping, training, recruiting for the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas. They are the ones perpetuating the ongoing strife.

We could have peace tomorrow if Hamas and Hezbollah stopped firing rockets into Israel. Thats all it would take. But thats not what Syria and Iran want. So it won’t stop. The best chance for peace in the region is to help sponsor and support the wave of uprisings spreading throught he area. Its there in Syria and in Iran…but its withering away with no real support, unlike other places….

MarkS says:

01:12pm | 13/01/12

“Less than 30 per cent of sexual offences are reported to police, making it hard for them to hunt down serial offenders.”

It is simply impossible to know the amount of offences not reported, because they are NOT reported.

“Advocacy group Bravehearts executive director Hetty Johnson”

“The SARO system has been adapted from a scheme developed by Bravehearts”

Anything suggested by Hetty Johnson is certain to be a really bad idea.

Don’t like somebody? Go to a number of internet cafes over a period of 6 months & make anonymous complaints of sexual assault etc. Bound to ruin them, after all where there is a lot of smoke there must be fire. Even better if you can make the MO look like a real rapist that has not been identified.

Once it was a fundamental of our justice system that you would be able to face your accusers. No longer.

Given the payouts made by victims comp courts it appears we are getting close to the Spanish inquisition, anonymous accusers who are rewarded.

Tim says:

01:14pm | 13/01/12

As long as the police only use the information very generally I’d be OK with it.
But more likely they’ll use it too freely and come up with bullshit statistics that are based on zero proof.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:20pm | 13/01/12

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn’t making a false accusation a criminal offense?

jay-ded says:

01:44pm | 13/01/12

I wonder how many female names would end up on that list….

AdamC says:

02:35pm | 13/01/12

This is quite concerning. Would I be told if someone made an anonymous accusation against me via this system? How long would the information be retained? What would police do to check the credibility of the accusation?

There are a lot of questions that article does not answer.

marley says:

03:15pm | 13/01/12

ON the face of it, this sounds pretty dangerous.  If it’s a way of trying to spot patterns of assaults, as in assaults occurring in a particular area or with a particular MO, or with a particular description of the assailant, I could see the value of it, but if it’s anonymous tips on individuals, well, that’s scary.

Mark says:

03:55pm | 13/01/12

It seems we are all in agreement here gents, do any of you have significant others that would disagree or would a woman please weigh in on the debate?? I may be too biased on this subject to see the perspective of the female I think because I can’t, for the life of me, understand how this is not a direct attack on the ability of a male to defend against a sexual assault case.  Shit, I am sounding like Erick

Eliabeth1 says:

08:56pm | 13/01/12

Is there a link so we can see the detail. Is it real?  I cant imagine what the purpose could be. It is too open to angry and revenge driven people making things up.  We already have some data on non reports through CASA and EASE. Possibly they could be looking at number of reports on one individual. But what then? You have to have a complaint through process.  Can they be sure that one person hasn’t used lots of email accounts to target someone?  It can’t have ethical approval, too many flaws. So I think it’s stupid and will inform nothing.

Elizabeth1 says:

09:10pm | 13/01/12

Sorry just saw the link. Too many reds and a small phone. Thats my excuse and I’m sticking to it ha ha. I haven’t changed my option though. It a programme and the evaluation will either say it had flaws or it will say we did this and it was really good. But it won’t go any where because it can’t. Unless they are willing to stalk people who may or may not be innocent. Lots of risks. I wouldn’t be involved.

marley says:

07:19am | 14/01/12

I’ve now had a look at the police website and at the actual form, and I must say I’m not comfortable with this.  The instructions and form make it clear that the person isn’t filing charges and that therefore the police will not launch a formal investigation.  It seems the information is more for collation and identification of patterns than for pursuit of an individual, so I can see the value there.  But, and it’s a big “but,” the form does ask if the victim can identify the assailant, provide his name, address, e-mail details etc.

So, I’d want to be very sure that the police have protocols in place to prevent harassment of someone who’s not been formally accused of anything by anyone.  Perhaps the name and contact details need to be “sanitized” out.

Anyway, thinking about this a bit more deeply, I’m under the impression that most sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victim - family, friends, acquaintances.  The rapist hiding in dark alleys to grab a passing female is not that common.  So, if the victim already knows who raped her, but isn’t willing to file charges, what exactly is the point of this exercise?  I could see the value if you don’t know who your rapist was - the police might be able to spot patterns and identify the habits of an unknown predator - but if it’s your ex boyfriend, what will filing a non-report accomplish?

The rationale behind this kind of escapes me.

Ben C says:

04:16pm | 13/01/12

Was wondering where you’d been fairs.