ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: vox nihili on July 20, 2013, 06:46:26 pm
-
Lurch to the right, desperate grab for votes and a complete disregard to the rights of refugees, or a pragmatic solution for a difficult situation, that provides a balance between border protection from economic migration but doesn't forget the refugees?
-
Won't be implemented.
-
In related but unrelated news, the processing centre in Nauru has been burnt down by riots. :(
-
In related but unrelated news, the processing centre in Nauru has been burnt down by riots. :(
Sixty million bucks in damage too they reckon. Needless to say that's a pretty bloody impressive riot!
-
In related but unrelated news, the processing centre in Nauru has been burnt down by riots. :(
Fucking idiots. Now everyone involved is going to have their asylum applications rejected and instead of being brought to the Australian mainland like they'd (probably) hoped they have to sleep in tents and worse conditions than they were probably in before. No sympathy for these people. I bet anyone who was against letting asylum seekers in is definitely going to side with them now.
Edit: Before I get labelled as a racist or someone who hates asylum seekers: I definitely feel sympathy for the ones who are peaceful in their protests I don't think they should be locked up in detention centres but if you start destroying property and causing millions of dollars in damage you're a criminal and you don't belong in this society.
-
Fucking idiots. Now everyone involved is going to have their asylum applications rejected and instead of being brought to the Australian mainland like they'd (probably) hoped they have to sleep in tents and worse conditions than they were probably in before. No sympathy for these people. I bet anyone who was against letting asylum seekers in is definitely going to side with them now.
I particularly loved the media backtracking on this one. Yesterday they made out as though they had striked (struck maybe?) because of the new changes to the asylum seeker policy. Not only was the policy not relevant to the rioters, the riot also took place hours before Rudd's announcement. It was a little too farfetched for channel nine to suggest that the Nauru rioters had seen the future and launched a riot about a policy that doesn't affect them...
-
Yeah the way multiple sources were reporting it made it sound like it was a result of KRudds announcement (which it obviously wasn't)
Australian Media: We report the facts sometimes
-
Yeah the way multiple sources were reporting it made it sound like it was a result of KRudds announcement (which it obviously wasn't)
Australian Media: We report the facts sometimes
News limited is my favourite one. Just a barrage of articles about how Rudd's asylum seeker policy isn't working and blah blah. Then all about Tony Abbott's alternative and a constant stream of his comments. Then today's headline "RUDD'S HUGE STEP TO THE RIGHT CAUSES A STIR". Really guys? Make up your minds!
Got to have a massive rant about the Media at the Plain English Speaking Award last year. Six minutes well spent (Y)
-
Fucking idiots. Now everyone involved is going to have their asylum applications rejected and instead of being brought to the Australian mainland like they'd (probably) hoped they have to sleep in tents and worse conditions than they were probably in before. No sympathy for these people. I bet anyone who was against letting asylum seekers in is definitely going to side with them now.
Edit: Before I get labelled as a racist or someone who hates asylum seekers: I definitely feel sympathy for the ones who are peaceful in their protests I don't think they should be locked up in detention centres but if you start destroying property and causing millions of dollars in damage you're a criminal and you don't belong in this society.
Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.
-
Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.
If they were being treated worse on Nauru then they were in their home countries then I can understand why they'd riot. But they weren't exactly being treated like king of kings in their home countries either.
-
Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.
The news made a very clear point in stating that they were Iranian asylum seekers. The intent there I think was to bring back Bob Carr's words "there are no refugees, these are just economic migrants from Iran that we are seeing making it to our shores". Naturally, it's a moronic statement, however, Iran is not a particularly big source of refugees. In reality, it actually takes one of the biggest number of refugees in the world.
-
If they were being treated worse on Nauru then they were in their home countries then I can understand why they'd riot. But they weren't exactly being treated like king of kings in their home countries either.
Doesn't matter. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and as a first-class citizen. Anything less is unacceptable.
Yeh t-rav that seems real likely, men and women (and children no less) getting on a shonky boat to risk their lives for a dollar.
-
Yeh t-rav that seems real likely, men and women (and children no less) getting on a shonky boat to risk their lives for a dollar.
People have certainly done crazier things for money I daresay. It's a hugely difficult situation though. On the one hand, as much as I hate to quote Tone, we do have to "stop the boats". It isn't a particularly safe passage into this country and there are certain parties that do exploit it. Having said that though, we have a responsibility to accept refugees. Both legally and as humans.
-
Won't be implemented.
It'll be implemented on the next boat that arrives.
People arriving by boat without a visa after 19 July 2013 will be subject to the regional agreement with Papua New Guinea and won’t be settled in Australia.
-
Okay; it will be temporarily implemented but won't be around long term.
-
Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.
Okay, but do you not see how counterproductive the riot was? It's not like they were going to riot and magically be let in to the country, now they have to put up with worse conditions and less hygiene/comfort than they had previously. Even if you are unhappy with the way they were detained previously you can't think that removing the buildings that had once detained them so that they can now be detained in tents is a sufficient outcome. And surely you can see that burning down/destroying property via violence is not really incentive for them to be processed and granted access to Australia any faster - it's incentive to prolong their detainment.
-
Okay, but do you not see how counterproductive the riot was? It's not like they were going to riot and magically be let in to the country, now they have to put up with worse conditions and less hygiene/comfort than they had previously. Even if you are unhappy with the way they were detained previously you can't think that removing the buildings that had once detained them so that they can now be detained in tents is a sufficient outcome. And surely you can see that burning down/destroying property via violence is not really incentive for them to be processed and granted access to Australia any faster - it's incentive to prolong their detainment.
It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.
You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.
-
It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.
You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.
That's not always been true. Italy was one of the most awful countries to asylum seekers. Their waters were policed 24/7 and they would arrest and imprison any Albanians that tried to cross the border.
-
What? Italy has a terrible track record of treating its asylum seekers badly and returning them to countries they're fleeing from
-
What? Italy has a terrible track record of treating its asylum seekers badly and returning them to countries they're fleeing from
Source?
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php
In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.
-
Source?
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php
In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.
By land area it is smaller, but that's not really an accurate way to look at the situation. Its population is almost three times the size of ours.
Not a really clear picture of how they deal with boat arrivals, but it gives some idea and shows that they're not accepting refugees as has been suggested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-15/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-flood-italian-island/1943002
I watched a documentary on it a couple of years back. They spend a huge amount of money and pour a huge amount of resources into "protecting" their borders.
-
By land area it is smaller, but that's not really an accurate way to look at the situation. Its population is almost three times the size of ours.
Not a really clear picture of how they deal with boat arrivals, but it gives some idea and shows that they're not accepting refugees as has been suggested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-15/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-flood-italian-island/1943002
I watched a documentary on it a couple of years back. They spend a huge amount of money and pour a huge amount of resources into "protecting" their borders.
Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?
How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.
-
That's the number of people who come in. That's not the number of people who are accepted.
-
Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?
How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.
The ability to take extra people isn't predicated on the space that the country has for them in terms of area, it's more about the country's existing infrastructure. A higher population would probably suggest that there is more habitable space. Governments also tightly immigration so as to regulate population growth. If the amount of refugees accepted is based on the proportion of population, the bigger the overall population, the larger the number in real terms. Traditionally, poorer countries take on far more refugees than anybody else.
-
Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.
Doesn't matter. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and as a first-class citizen. Anything less is unacceptable.
They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.
Yeh t-rav that seems real likely, men and women (and children no less) getting on a shonky boat to risk their lives for a dollar.
Then why do they come to Australia? They are mostly Iranian. Do you know anything about Iran? Beyond a couple of minority groups, I really can't fathom a legitimate refugee from Iran.
It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.
They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed.
You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.
No, they don't. And same, actually. I actually know a few Sudanese refugees. They went to UNHCR in Egypt, applied for an Australian visa and got here.
Source?
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php
In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.
You're a moron. That's ARRIVALS BY BOAT, not how many people they let in or accepted. For all that document tells us, they may turn around all of them.
Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?
How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.
You don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country. Wow. Okay.
Actually, it is up to debate. The number of boat arrivals in 2012 was 17202, and will be over 50000 this year according to the government.
-
They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.
On this point, before you get mauled for it by everyone. We are actually under an obligation to accept genuine refugees. As a signatory to the refugee convention, by international law we are required to accept refugees irrespective of how they make it to Australia. That's why this has caused a stir because it's seen as ignoring that legal responsibility. I'd say the government thinks that it has circumvented it though by actually providing them with a place of settlement. They'll think that will be what the voters take from it, though if they were ever held to account (though we wouldn't be) I doubt that it would hold.
-
On this point, before you get mauled for it by everyone. We are actually under an obligation to accept genuine refugees. As a signatory to the refugee convention, by international law we are required to accept refugees irrespective of how they make it to Australia. That's why this has caused a stir because it's seen as ignoring that legal responsibility. I'd say the government thinks that it has circumvented it though by actually providing them with a place of settlement. They'll think that will be what the voters take from it, though if they were ever held to account (though we wouldn't be) I doubt that it would hold.
It's our choice, as a sovereign nation, to be a signatory to the Convention. We could withdraw from it at any time we like. There is also no enforcement mechanism.
To anticipate the next reply: Yes, elements of it are considered customary international law. But firstly, the same sovereignty argument applies. And secondly, even if we accept its validity... There are repeat offenders of international law out there who get completely ignored, I think people will move on from this one.
-
Source?
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php
In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.
Other people have pointed out how that's a bad metric for assessing it but with respect to their terrible track record here are three commentaries spread out across the last decade:
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/february/human-rights-court-slams-italian-migration-policy/73682.aspx
http://www.internationallawobserver.eu/2010/05/04/italys-asylum-policy-violates-international-law/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3719528.stm
-
It's our choice, as a sovereign nation, to be a signatory to the Convention. We could withdraw from it at any time we like. There is also no enforcement mechanism.
To anticipate the next reply: Yes, elements of it are considered customary international law. But firstly, the same sovereignty argument applies. And secondly, even if we accept its validity... There are repeat offenders of international law out there who get completely ignored, I think people will move on from this one.
You're right, it is our choice to sign to the convention. Having said that though, I don't think that refugees post any threat to our sovereignty whatsoever. The rhetoric in this country about refugees is astonishing at times. We forget far too quickly our own stories.
-
That's true, and I fully support an expansion of our humanitarian visa program.
However, the meteoric rise in unauthorised arrivals by boat - what we got in a year in 2011 we now get in a month - surely represents a problem. Not only are we propping up people smugglers, the system is unable to cope with it - it'd be impossible to assess so many claims.
-
@Polonium, it is a treaty and not customary international law but rather actual international law and therefore harder to make an argument for ignoring it.
Secondly, there ARE enforcement mechanisms, although they are necessarily not as strong as domestic ones due to the horizontal nature of international law. Look up the jurisprudence on Australia's multiple breaches of its obligations to refugees, and look up also the repeated criticisms from other states and from UN experts of Australia's refugee policies during the Universal Periodic Reviews (admittedly, from some rather hypocritical states, but nonetheless)
Thirdly, "we can withdraw any time we like" is a piss weak argument for overtly flouting it. Either withdraw, or observe it if you're going to sign up for it.
Fourthly, the fact that Australia is a signatory to international law instruments and is a participant in the system necessarily suggests that we have given up some of our sovereignty in order to benefit from the international law system. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to benefit from being able to pick on Japan's whaling policy in the one hand and scream "sovereignty" on the other when it's turned back on you. Sovereignty is another piss weak argument and sounds like another attempt to grasp at straws by the right wing bogans who don't want those dirty "sand niggers" polluting our "boundless plains to share".
Fifthly, repeat offenders are NOT "ignored" and I suggest you do more research into the enforcement mechanisms that exist and the nature and history behind the int law system that prevents the stronger, more coercive systems that you are used to in a domestic context.
-
In related but unrelated news, the processing centre in Nauru has been burnt down by riots. :(
And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.
-
And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.
That's an awful statement. The diversity of Australia and our immigration history is one of the best things about it.
-
And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.
Rofl, you're all happy and dandy when you have your writers festival type reffo but not your western suburbs of Sydney type.
Such hypocrisy that you'll watch your Ahn Do's of the world on TV and praise 'straya for being such a land of opportunity but then not give two shits about people who can't take the systematic bullshit any more and revolt.
If it were up to me, we would be allowing as many people into the country as possible from poorer countries. They add so much.
-
@Polonium, it is a treaty and not customary international law but rather actual international law and therefore harder to make an argument for ignoring it.
Secondly, there ARE enforcement mechanisms, although they are necessarily not as strong as domestic ones due to the horizontal nature of international law. Look up the jurisprudence on Australia's multiple breaches of its obligations to refugees, and look up also the repeated criticisms from other states and from UN experts of Australia's refugee policies during the Universal Periodic Reviews (admittedly, from some rather hypocritical states, but nonetheless)
Thirdly, "we can withdraw any time we like" is a piss weak argument for overtly flouting it. Either withdraw, or observe it if you're going to sign up for it.
Fourthly, the fact that Australia is a signatory to international law instruments and is a participant in the system necessarily suggests that we have given up some of our sovereignty in order to benefit from the international law system. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to benefit from being able to pick on Japan's whaling policy in the one hand and scream "sovereignty" on the other when it's turned back on you. Sovereignty is another piss weak argument and sounds like another attempt to grasp at straws by the right wing bogans who don't want those dirty "sand niggers" polluting our "boundless plains to share".
Fifthly, repeat offenders are NOT "ignored" and I suggest you do more research into the enforcement mechanisms that exist and the nature and history behind the int law system that prevents the stronger, more coercive systems that you are used to in a domestic context.
Depending on how the Convention is read, you could say we're ignoring it right now - as are most Western countries. While I'm not suggesting we actually withdraw from it, it is in need of serious reform.
It is a State's right to pick and choose which international treaties it wishes to be bound by. Australia can enter into any treaty, or choose not to enter into it. They are completely separate from each other. The US is not a signatory to the Convention, for example.
The only international organs which hold any power to adequately enforce international law are the SC and the ICJ, with the latter needs the former's approval of any enforcement (see Nicragua v. US). All other organs' enforcement powers are farcical. To be quite frank, the UNHRC not only has zero power, but also zero credibility. If you're getting yelled at by the UNHRC, you're doing the right thing. And that's about all that they can do, anyway - yell.
-
To be quite frank, the UNHRC not only has zero power, but also zero credibility. If you're getting yelled at by the UNHRC, you're doing the right thing. And that's about all that they can do, anyway - yell.
That is not true. Australia has heeded UNHRC views on numerous occasions (when it doesn't concern refugee policy).
-
They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.
Then why do they come to Australia? They are mostly Iranian. Do you know anything about Iran? Beyond a couple of minority groups, I really can't fathom a legitimate refugee from Iran.
They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed.
No, they don't. And same, actually. I actually know a few Sudanese refugees. They went to UNHCR in Egypt, applied for an Australian visa and got here.
You're a moron. That's ARRIVALS BY BOAT, not how many people they let in or accepted. For all that document tells us, they may turn around all of them.
You don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country. Wow. Okay.
Actually, it is up to debate. The number of boat arrivals in 2012 was 17202, and will be over 50000 this year according to the government.
Wow. Your insensitivity towards the issue is just appalling.
Just read through what you have just said: "Australia is a sovereign entity and thus its only interests should be its nationals" and therefore Australia "shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens"
Aren't we bound by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights - which, by the way, Australia had a great role in creating? Isn't the fundamental premise of the treaty that all humans, regardless of arbitrary grounds, be treated equally? When you come up and say that Australia's "ONLY" interests should be its nationals, you are showing what kind of a selfish prick you are, tbh. Seriously, if your logic worked, Australia shouldn't have entered Afghanistan, pursued anti-whaling missions at the ICJ or even pusued a non-permanent seat in the SC. Why? Because it does not benefit Australians in the domestic context.
"Then why do they come to Australia? They are mostly Iranian. Do you know anything about Iran? Beyond a couple of minority groups, I really can't fathom a legitimate refugee from Iran."
Remind me again: who are you? When about 90-95% of refugee arrivals are actually deemed genuine refugees by the AFP (or some other body), who are you to undermine the legitimacy of these asylum seekers? Honestly, you just show yourself to have no empathy for these people - people who do it tough in their home countries. Your generalisation that most Iranians, and other refugees, would risk their life, board a leaky boat, be parted from their families to come to Australia and "strike it rich" shows how little humanity and empathy you really have. If you are going to risk your life, why would you go to another country that would potentially endanger you? Yes: Australia is becoming a people-smuggler haven - we definitely need to curb that, but that does not warrant you making such a comment.
"They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed."
Well.. yes, refugees' claims have to be assessed. If legitimately done, these should take MONTHS at most. Not years (in manycurrent cases). And seriously I don't know what you are complaining for. Considering we taxpayers pay $300 to keep criminals incarcerated each day, why are you displaying bigotry to these refugees - a relatively small proportion of the population? Why are you not complaining about prisoners wasting all our money? Because they are "citizens"? Because they are "Australian"?
"No, they don't. And same, actually. I actually know a few Sudanese refugees. They went to UNHCR in Egypt, applied for an Australian visa and got here. "
Yup cool story. Because a few Sudanese refugees can speak for the whole crowd.
-
Oh wow, I didn't see this before and I'm disgusted
They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed.
Who would "prefer" to arrive via a leaky boat that could capsize any time? If their home country's situation were not so bad, would they be willing to risk their lives to escape?
I did some basic refugee work during summer semester, and I think this status I posted about it fits well here:
Today I spent an hour sorting through a bunch of asylum seeker and humanitarian visa applications. Yes, those evil "boat people" who allegedly threaten the very sovereignty of our nation.
In just one hour, I read about applicants with family members beaten up because of their religion or ethnicity. Fathers kidnapped and murdered on the way to work. Primary school-aged children disappearing on the way to school and never heard from again. Mothers, sisters and daughters raped for committing the heinous crime of being female. Best friends kidnapped for having different political views. Houses and farms destroyed by thugs because of their race or religion. Fatwas issued by extremist groups crying for an entire ethnicity to be wiped out. Living day to day in fear that the next time your family walked down the road they would be blown up by a suicide bomber.
These people had their family contribute their entire savings to pay a people smuggler to get the one person out in search of a better place.
To those who say, "well why don't they apply via the proper avenues?" - do you know how long a typical application takes via the Department of Immigration? 16 months. Most of those files dated back from 2009 and have still not been resolved.
Yes, why don't you go and say "apply properly and wait at least 16 months" to the widowed mother with 5 dependent daughters who cannot even go outside for fear of being raped, beaten up or killed because she has no males to accompany her. Say it to the Shia family who are not legally recognised in their OWN country and whose government wouldn't even lift a finger to punish the thugs who destroyed their home because they are the "wrong" type of Muslim. Say it to the family who fears to leave their house because there is a jihad against their ethnicity. Say it to the mother whose son "disappeared" for daring to apply to relocate the family.
I love this country, but fuck you, Australian government, for not giving a shit about your fellow suffering humans, and fuck you to everyone who agrees with them.
-
I'm seeing the title for the Greens' campaign, ninwa...
I love this country, but fuck you, Australian government, for not giving a shit about your fellow suffering humans, and fuck you to everyone who agrees with them.
-
They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.
Then why do they come to Australia? They are mostly Iranian. Do you know anything about Iran? Beyond a couple of minority groups, I really can't fathom a legitimate refugee from Iran.
They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed.
No, they don't. And same, actually. I actually know a few Sudanese refugees. They went to UNHCR in Egypt, applied for an Australian visa and got here.
You're a moron. That's ARRIVALS BY BOAT, not how many people they let in or accepted. For all that document tells us, they may turn around all of them.
You don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country. Wow. Okay.
Actually, it is up to debate. The number of boat arrivals in 2012 was 17202, and will be over 50000 this year according to the government.
I completely agree with you.
Also, the fact that you're doing EAL is beyond me.
-
I'll consolidate my response to both M_BONG and Nina into one post.
The principle that a country's foremost obligation is to its nationals is one that I will ardently hold onto. Perhaps it was wrong to say that its only ethical obligation is its citizenry, as obviously there are things which are plainly wrong and a minimum moral threshold does exist.
However, your suggestion that "all humans should be treated the same" is an outright joke. If that is the case, then we should be giving away almost all of our wealth away as foreign aid. We enjoy a very high standard of living here in Australia, while in other countries humans are starving to death. If we really had an equal obligation to every single person, this would not be the case. We would be spending a lot less than 99% of our money on ourselves.
The examples which you gave do not support your point. Australia joined the War in Afghanistan to support the United States in collective self-defence against the attack by a group which is supported and provided aid and comfort by the Afghani government. There was no humanitarian consideration here.
Australia initiated a legal case against the Japanese whaling operation in the ICJ as the Australian citizenry deemed it prudent. Australia pursued a seat on the Security Council mostly to enhance our standing in the world, not the other way around.
I am not doubting that life in other countries is shit. That people would be willing to risk their lives in order to enjoy the comforts of living in a Western country. I'm also saying, however, that we are not bound, neither should we, accept all of them.
This goes to the very basic question of "Why do we accept refugees?" In my view, not every person who lives a disadvantaged life is a genuine refugee. By the very broad standard some have advocated in this thread, we owe an obligation to just about every person living in a developed country - especially going by the status Nina posted.
Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights by a government, which boil down to the most fundamental human rights. Furthermore, for resettlement in a third country, relocating back to your original country cannot be an option due to ongoing persecution.
-
I think it's probably worthwhile saying at this point that rioters have done a lot less damage to this world than xenophobes.
-
They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals.
Who gives two shits?
Honestly, they're fucking human beings of kingdom Animalia.
-
are there any other people who were refugees on this board whose country they came from was bad and had the sorts of things that ninwa talked about in her post, that get really upset at asylum seekers who dont go through the proper motions at refugee camps and just get on the boat?
all this asylum seeker stuff makes people in my community/family angry because instead of waiting in the camp for years and doing everything properly the asylum seekers get on a boat.
here in australia people can argue "thats so insensitive" but seriously in countries with lots of people leaving you have the people that go to refugee camps and put up with the shit for ages then get through properly, and then you have the families that choose to get on the boats instead which in some cases can shortcut the process by a year.
-
I'll consolidate my response to both M_BONG and Nina into one post.
The principle that a country's foremost obligation is to its nationals is one that I will ardently hold onto. Perhaps it was wrong to say that its only ethical obligation is its citizenry, as obviously there are things which are plainly wrong and a minimum moral threshold does exist.
However, your suggestion that "all humans should be treated the same" is an outright joke. If that is the case, then we should be giving away almost all of our wealth away as foreign aid. We enjoy a very high standard of living here in Australia, while in other countries humans are starving to death. If we really had an equal obligation to every single person, this would not be the case. We would be spending a lot less than 99% of our money on ourselves.
The examples which you gave do not support your point. Australia joined the War in Afghanistan to support the United States in collective self-defence against the attack by a group which is supported and provided aid and comfort by the Afghani government. There was no humanitarian consideration here.
Australia initiated a legal case against the Japanese whaling operation in the ICJ as the Australian citizenry deemed it prudent. Australia pursued a seat on the Security Council mostly to enhance our standing in the world, not the other way around.
I am not doubting that life in other countries is shit. That people would be willing to risk their lives in order to enjoy the comforts of living in a Western country. I'm also saying, however, that we are not bound, neither should we, accept all of them.
This goes to the very basic question of "Why do we accept refugees?" In my view, not every person who lives a disadvantaged life is a genuine refugee. By the very broad standard some have advocated in this thread, we owe an obligation to just about every person living in a developed country - especially going by the status Nina posted.
Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights by a government, which boil down to the most fundamental human rights. Furthermore, for resettlement in a third country, relocating back to your original country cannot be an option due to ongoing persecution.
You obviously have a very narrow scope of equality. Equality does not have to refer to living standards: it can refer to intangible things such as dignity, due process (ie. not detained arbitarily) and much more. Your red herring on "equality means we have to give all our money away" actually made me laugh.
When I used the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right as an example, I did so because you said Australia should not treat refugees as citizens. I used the treaty as an example because it is inarguable that specific treaty is one of the most important rights document. As Australia is a signatory to it, it should respect the content of that treaty: which demands equality (Not merelywealth, like you stated): but instead, important processes such as dignity, due process etc., should be afforded to all citizens, not just Australians, because that is what the treaty actually stipulates.
Oh and: thank you for addressing all the examples that I used. I merely used them as examples to show how your point that Australia's only concern should be of its legal citizens was nonsense : perhaps you misunderstood my point?
And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.
Finally I think perceptions of refugees arriving by boat being "queue jumpers" and thereby illegal are simply not right. Desperate times call for desperate measures - these refugees probably do not even know that what they are doing is illegal. They just want to get out. The system surely needs to be fixed: but suggestions that we should incarcerate "queue jumpers" because other people "put up with shit" in refugee camps (as perhaps, a punishment and deterrent) has no real basis.
-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-border-on-paranoia/story-e6frfhqf-1225791470717
This is a news article by the herald sun a few years ago on asylum seekers. Not sure if its entirely relevant to the debate but it does address the issue quite well in my opinion.
-
I don't really like playing into debates on AN, but this popped up in my FB newsfeed and I'm guessing there might be people here interested in signing it:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/seeking_asylum_is_a_human_right_locb/?copy
-
You obviously have a very narrow scope of equality. Equality does not have to refer to living standards: it can refer to intangible things such as dignity, due process (ie. not detained arbitarily) and much more. Your red herring on "equality means we have to give all our money away" actually made me laugh.
When I used the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right as an example, I did so because you said Australia should not treat refugees as citizens. I used the treaty as an example because it is inarguable that specific treaty is one of the most important rights document. As Australia is a signatory to it, it should respect the content of that treaty: which demands equality (Not merelywealth, like you stated): but instead, important processes such as dignity, due process etc., should be afforded to all citizens, not just Australians, because that is what the treaty actually stipulates.
I did mention in my previous post that there are basic rights that should be afforded to persons regardless of their nationality. (I am not using "everyone" because I believe that every right has its limitations, and there is always a case in which it should not apply.) Jurisprudence on rights is usually a balancing acts between governmental interests and individual interests. See, for example, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.
Oh and: thank you for addressing all the examples that I used. I merely used them as examples to show how your point that Australia's only concern should be of its legal citizens was nonsense : perhaps you misunderstood my point
Your examples actually made exactly my point. All those actions were taken in what the citizenry of Australia perceived to be in its best interests and the correct action, or at least in its elected representatives' views. The Commonwealth acted to carry out its citizens' wills. That's the idea of sovereignty.
And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.
I'm surprised at your comment that economic refugees are "people who only want a better life". I'd imagine that all refugees, genuine or not, are in search of a better life.
The question is in what cases an obligation lies to accord them a better life, and shelter them from whatever they are escaping from. I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status. You're free to disagree with me, but wherever you set your standards, they need to be clear.
-
I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status.
what do you think is sufficient then?
-
what do you think is sufficient then?
Presumably refugee needs to be written on the package. He seems to think they're an item for trade.
-
Going to play Devil's Advocate here:
We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution. Hence, the lower standard of living in PNG is not a reason to allow for settling of refugees in Australia. However, this assumes that asylum seekers are afforded at least basic (absolute basic) living conditions and are not persecuted there while they are being processed.
The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible :( :( ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth. But how much of a burden are they? One would have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees.
Why Australia over PNG? Assuming the refugees are treated humanely in PNG, in both Australia and PNG they would be free from persecution, and the aim of the refugee program has been fulfilled. The difference is that Australia is a developed country with a high standard of living. If this is the difference, and the refugees are settled in Australia over PNG, then the refugees are effectively economic migrants too. Economic migrants should come to Australia by other means (such as a skilled migration program).
-
Going to play Devil's Advocate here:
We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution. Hence, the lower standard of living in PNG is not a reason to allow for settling of refugees in Australia. However, this assumes that asylum seekers are afforded at least basic (absolute basic) living conditions and are not persecuted there while they are being processed.
The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? However, one would then have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees. In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible :( :( ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth.
Why Australia over PNG? Assuming the refugees are treated humanely in PNG, in both Australia and PNG they would be free from persecution, and the aim of the refugee program has been fulfilled. The difference is that Australia is a developed country with a high standard of living. If this is the difference, and the refugees are settled in Australia over PNG, then the refugees are effectively economic migrants too. Economic migrants should come to Australia by other means (such as a skilled migration program).
You make some very good points. I'm not as confident as you are about the legality of the PNG solution. As the law stands, we're technically not allowed to turn anyone away who tries to access the country, so it is still illegal, but it does go a little further than the LNP policy in actually giving some sort of solution.
I don't think that refugees are as big a burden on this country than we pretend. As is often the case, we look for "sexy" issues rather than those that actually matter in terms of quantifiable burden. Given the position we are in, we are pretty hopeless in comparison to other nations refugees wise.
To be honest, I do agree with most of what you've said. It's reasoned logic really and fact, so there's not too much arguing to that! It's just some of those facts that we could perhaps change, and the technicalities of the international law I guess.
-
The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible :( :( ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth. But how much of a burden are they? One would have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees.
http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-our-asylum-seeker-policy/
-
But it is far too superficial for you to conclude, through stating one case, that the jurisprudence on rights is a balancing act between state and individual. In broad legal reasoning, the "state" is usually not even considered. When looking at legal reasoning on "rights", the names Jeremy Bentham and John Rawls come to mind in most people's minds. Bentham said that when considering "rights" of individuals, one must take into account individuals' sentience (ability to feel), thereby proposing utilitarianism (greatest good). Are we really considering the sentience of asylum seekers by incarcerating into cells (put bluntly, arbitary detention) in the excuse of deterrence and "processing"? Are we really serving the "greatest good": how are we even negatively affected by asylum seekers on a daily basis? Please don't give me bullsht about the economy, national security, setting a dangerous precedent etc, when the most boat arrivals each month in Australia's history has been at most ~4,000. Think about the number of immigrants overstaying their visa and using all our resources. Think about the criminals who choose to commit a stupid crime and be sent to jail, whilst taxpayers fork out $277 each day to keep them in prison. Seriously. Look at the bigger picture.
On the other hand, Rawls proposed the two principles of justice - most relevant to this "rant" is the veil of ignorance: Rawls postulated that the state/authority should consider what it is like to live in another person's shoe: thereby the "veil of ignorance" (ie. person X, before being born into this world does not know who and where they would end up - whether Africa or Antartica). therefore a logical and neutral person would choose to give equal rights to everyone because that would give them a decent set of opportunities in life (ie. they don't want to gamble with their life). In my opinion, Rawl's veil of ignorance is the single most important theory in rights-jurisprudence because it assumes that individuals like yourself, are only selfish in not granting people equal rights because you are already in a higher position and is selfish enough not to want to give up what you have.
Don't get me wrong: I am not saying everyone needs to be equal (ie. giving away all our wealth as foreign aid), but we should do our very best to increase welfare for these boat people. This does not mean allowing millions of people to come into Australia by boat, like you suggested could happen - that would be extremely problematic.
While I appreciate your philosophical insight into this discussion, I question its relevance.
Firstly, let's get this out of the way -- rights jurisprudence is, and always have been, about balancing the needs of the state with that of the individual. While my primary experience has been with American Constitutional issues, I can guarantee you that this is the case virtually everywhere. Every single guaranteed by law is subject to limitations if there is a strong enough governmental interest opposing it. Even laws discriminating on the basis of race can be enacted - see strict scrutiny. Before you go on yelling "but this is American and they are AWFUL PEOPLE", I would suggest checking European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on the matter as well. And as an aside, Equal Protection rights in the US are probably one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the world.
While your personally characterisation of me as "one of them" is indeed touching, you then go on to contradict yourself. Either we afford those people full equality under the law with Australian citizens (as your globalised version of the veil of ignorance would suggest), or we do not. If we do not, then a line must be drawn somewhere.
But in any case, we agree that some legal rights do apply to those who arrive unauthorised by boat. If you think that I would not afford them their legal rights, feel free to point out where those deficiencies occur.
However, Rudd's PNG solution certainly is not justifiable to stop the issue. A domestic problem can never be solved overseas: considering PNG already has refugees coming into Australia (look up Refugee Review Tribunal statistics), this is certainly a policy set to fail and a desperate government showing its true colours mere months before an election.
A legislature has the legal right to enact a stupid law. While this law strikes me as uncommonly silly, it is not my role as a member of the judiciary to strike it down for being so.
Whether or not the PNG plan is good public policy in order to achieve its stated goals is up to debate. Its stated goals, however, are legitimate ones; and the way in which it carries out those goals is also acceptable.
" I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status"
Seriously, had you said that at the outset, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all. You really have little humanity in you.
I prefer to see myself as a pragmatic idealist, but thank you for your very kind assessment of my character based on one viewpoint on a specific issue which I had put forward. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to pose a question here. What is the purpose of granting asylum? In what cases should it be granted? The main issue here seems to be my inability to differentiate between most "refugees" and a generic person who lives in a developing country.
The three cases which I have stated I see as insufficient in themselves to constitute grounds for refugee status - political violence, high incidence of rape, and war - exist in well over half the countries in the world. Take the issue of high incidence of rape or other public safety issues. If we do see this as sufficient grounds for refugee standing, then virtually all African nationals (including those of the developed South Africa) are legitimate refugees.
If we look at political oppression and/or violence, then the entire population of the People's Republic of China are legitimate refugees.
And if we look at war... I think you know where I am going with this by now.
If anyone can point to me narrower grounds to differentiate between someone who was simply unlucky enough to be born in the wrong country and a legitimate refugee, I would be happy to hear about it.
-
And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.
I don't understand why we have a moral duty to do so.
If we signed a treaty that says we must take in X number of asylum seekers, then so be it, I accept that a country ought to be credible. But you argue from a moral ground. Why must we have a moral burden to do so?
"I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status"
Seriously, had you said that at the outset, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all. You really have little humanity in you.
Is having humanity (and I assume by extension, compassion and empathy) necessarily virtuous? I am not convinced that humanity is a quality we all ought to strive towards. My interpretation of survival of the fittest is that it requires a selfish and opportunistic mindset. Why must we then celebrate this notion of "humanity"?
-
Is having humanity (and I assume by extension, compassion and empathy) necessarily virtuous? I am not convinced that humanity is a quality we all ought to strive towards. My interpretation of survival of the fittest is that it requires a selfish and opportunistic mindset. Why must we then celebrate this notion of "humanity"?
Who is John Galt?
-
Going to play Devil's Advocate here:
We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution.
Homosexuality and Transsexuality are both illegal in PNG. Anyone caught taking part in homosexual activities can face imprisonment of up to 14 years.
There will be some people who will continue to be persecuted in PNG.
are there any other people who were refugees on this board whose country they came from was bad and had the sorts of things that ninwa talked about in her post, that get really upset at asylum seekers who dont go through the proper motions at refugee camps and just get on the boat?
all this asylum seeker stuff makes people in my community/family angry because instead of waiting in the camp for years and doing everything properly the asylum seekers get on a boat.
here in australia people can argue "thats so insensitive" but seriously in countries with lots of people leaving you have the people that go to refugee camps and put up with the shit for ages then get through properly, and then you have the families that choose to get on the boats instead which in some cases can shortcut the process by a year.
The whole process isn't as orderly as people believe it to be, there certainly aren't any 'queues' at refugee camps, and it's not like people are processed on a 'first come first serve' basis.
A lot of the refugees coming by boat have no other way of getting to Australia despite being actual asylum seekers. Contrary to what Bob Carr believes, that 90% of 'boat people' are economic refugees (a claim that has no empirical data to back it up), the UNHCR identifies a significant amount of people coming by boat to be genuine refugees.
A lot of these people, despite the legitimacy of their refugee status, are unable to get to Australia through legitimate means. They're there in Indonesia, where they aren't allowed to work or take up residence. So they obviously can't stay in Indonesia, going back to their own country is not an option, so they decide to spend upwards of a hundred thousand dollars and risk their lives trying to get to Australia by boat. In some cases this is the only option they have. Coming on a plane through legitimate means would almost always be the preferred route, but for some asylum seekers it just isn't possible.
For whatever reason, through little to no fault of their own, there are genuine asylum seekers in Indonesia who are unable to attain visas or come to Australia through proper channels. PM Rudd's new policy is basically making it so that these particular refugees are basically ignored, which is what I think is causing some of the uproar.
(Please note that I am very new to this issue, so I could be way off on this)
-
Who is John Galt?
I will stop the motor of the world.
-
I'm all for compassion and empathy, but everything has its limitations.
Who is John Galt?
(http://replygif.net/thumbnail/651.gif)
-
The travel advisory to Papua New Guinea recommends exercising a high degree of caution, similar to the one for Brazil, (which hosts a lot of refugees) South Africa, or Israel.
This is a level below Egypt and North Korea's recommendations.
Assuming refugees are going to be resettled in PNG, and that is unethical, the question arises of why you are preferencing the needs of refugees who have settled in PNG over the preferences of PNGers. Why isn't it suitable for asylum seekers to live there (it would certainly be a large improvement), but it is okay for the local population?
-
I did mention in my previous post that there are basic rights that should be afforded to persons regardless of their nationality. (I am not using "everyone" because I believe that every right has its limitations, and there is always a case in which it should not apply.) Jurisprudence on rights is usually a balancing acts between governmental interests and individual interests. See, for example, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.
I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further, but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.
-
Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.
-
I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further, but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.
Polonium just got lawyered!
-
Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.
I considered doing it a while back, but I find the typo somewhat darkly/satirically amusing at this point
-
Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.
Well that's embarrassing...
-
I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further
Well that's a shame but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.
Sure, my understanding of jurisprudence on human rights is largely limited to SCOTUS, and to some degree ECHR. We don't have enumerated rights (well, just about) in Commonwealth law, and I'm not so familiar with the Victorian Charter nor case law based on it to speak about it.
But I didn't even need to look that far. The Charter itself allows exceptions.
If you're aware of any relevant cases in international law, I'd be glad to hear about it.
t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick. :)
But anyways, I'm also done here, considering no one has actually defended their position against the policy beyond "ermahgerd it's in the Convention" or "ermahgerd them poor people how could you my heart is bleeding".
-
(http://replygif.net/thumbnail/651.gif)
I'm pretty shocked by this reaction :O
-
t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick. :)
Righto then.
The reason I've largely reserved comment in this debate is that plenty of my fellows here have managed to consistently strip your arguments down into nothing more than a pile of pompous jargon. Interjecting with "namecalling and ooooohs" is because there really isn't anything to add there. Ninwa very, very successfully demonstrated to everyone that you didn't have a clue what you were on about, and I was very right in making that interjection. Adding anything more would have been an insult to the job ninwa did on your ridiculous arguments. There are many people here more capable than me of presenting an argument from a legal standpoint, which by and large seems to be what you've gone for.
To state the obvious as well, you completely contradict yourself by calling me a half-witted dick.
A word of advice though, it's all well and good to try to present an extremely jargonistic and seemingly intelligent argument, but what does it really achieve? There's no denying that you've been able to use your language to quite a high standard. Plenty of legalese, plenty of nice fluffy syntax...that's really all well and good. Hey, you even went with the chiefly British "half-witted" to class up your insult. At the end of the day though, you've presented a series of fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect arguments. You've constantly tried to say that you're all for helping people out, then backing that up by preaching the typical arguments of Australia's population of bigots and xenophobes.
It's not enough to say everything intelligently without saying anything intelligent.
-
I'm pretty shocked by this reaction :O
Meh, it's a reaction to Ayn Rand. :P
<snip>
Yeah, I wasn't expecting much more. It's rather funny, all I've basically been asking for is a consistent and sustainable approach to why we should grant asylum and to whom. What I've received in return are personal attacks based on my "lack of humanity", being labelled a "xenophobe" and "one of them bigots".
And then people were wondering why someone with my views state that he can't stand liberals.
-
You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?
-
Yeah, I wasn't expecting much more. It's rather funny, all I've basically been asking for is a consistent and sustainable approach to why we should grant asylum and to whom. What I've received in return are personal attacks based on my "lack of humanity", being labelled a "xenophobe" and "one of them bigots".
I can't say that I disagree with everything you've said. You've actually made some fantastic points. There are two issues I take with what you have said though. You support those points with factual errors and with arguments that do show a lack of humanity.
In my approach to policy and by extension into human rights, I like to be pragmatic. I like the numbers. For example, cancer mainly kills old people and is less of a burden on the people than mental health issues. By that (and the numbers that support it), we should be focusing on mental health more than we should cancer. So I think I get your frustration to some extent. I think we're on the same page there. There's nothing good about an emotionally charged debate most of the time. It is better to have, as you've said, "a consistent and sustainable approach". I don't believe that you've completely done that. The numbers shouldn't come in the way of the moral/ethical arguments. That's why people are objecting to your pragmatics, because you're using those to also try to explain the ethical side of the debate, and that approach isn't really a good way to go.
-
I agree with you a lot here. I did contribute quite significantly to polonium's emotionally-charged points. But I found it hard to control my emotions in a sensitive and a humanitarian issue like asylum seekers, considering some of the things said. But at the end of the day everyone has their own opinions and I guess I have learned that I shouldn't always try to change that - certainly not over a screen and a keyboard! haha.
It's pretty easy to get emotionally charged with this though. It is such an important and sensitive issue, and Polonium has played the pompous debating style quite well—I think, and I'm sure he can confirm, that a very large goal of his "sustained approach" is to sustain his emotions whilst waiting for the other person to want to go off.
-
You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?
I assumed it applies more to Mao, but yes, I understood why you said it.
I don't think it's the entirely correct way to categorise my belief, though. In terms of political theory, I do believe a sovereign state only has an obligation to its nationals in terms of domestic policy and some international/foreign policy as well. Its nationals may view (and I would share this view) that it holds some (or however much they believe) obligation towards foreign nationals. It can therefore join international treaties such as the Refugee Convention, but it also has a right to withdraw from it.
There are exceptions, mostly in the realm of warfare and serious human right abuses, in which the good coming out of maintaining self-determination cannot trump the ethical wrongs. In those cases, it's up to the international community to intervene.
t-rav, it's all good. And I suppose it's good to hear that I can make a reasoned argument, sometimes at least. :P
I'd like to be made aware of those factual errors when I make them, if possible. I suppose that certain events and experiences have made me not pay much attention to emotional factors in my ethical consideration, and perhaps I've gone too far overboard with that.
I just saw your last post, and this is important to me so I will reply to it. I do not, and will not, ever engage in flame-baiting or any sort of personally manipulative tactics.
-
You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?
Sure. I will be the token Randian to be sneered at if that's what's needed to get a straight answer instead of smart-ass remarks out of you.
Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?
The fact that Randian philosophy (as poorly thought out and communicated as it is) has such a following means that quite a few people also feel the same "zero obligation" or "lack of humanity" or greed or selfishness or any name you wish to give it. Yet the criticisms I've seen for it are only ever snark remarks such as the commentary you provided, or choruses of people trying to out-do each other in Rand-bashing without mentioning any Randian ideologies.
Surely the cause for this debate boils down to the devide between the Randian ideology and the more utilitarian ideology (or however you choose to classify it). So, a proper critique please. Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?
-
Sure, my understanding of jurisprudence on human rights is largely limited to SCOTUS, and to some degree ECHR. We don't have enumerated rights (well, just about) in Commonwealth law, and I'm not so familiar with the Victorian Charter nor case law based on it to speak about it.
But I didn't even need to look that far. The Charter itself allows exceptions.
If you're aware of any relevant cases in international law, I'd be glad to hear about it.
t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick. :)
But anyways, I'm also done here, considering no one has actually defended their position against the policy beyond "ermahgerd it's in the Convention" or "ermahgerd them poor people how could you my heart is bleeding".
The Victorian Charter has little to no impact on matters of federal law. And you are completely right that we do not have human rights enshrined federally like the US does. So I'm even more baffled at why you decided it would be a good idea to quote US cases. Perhaps you thought it made your argument look more valid than it actually is.
In my opinion, arguments from law and arguments from humanity and compassion (which form the entire foundation of international human rights law) are rather valid ones, and I think you are just looking for any excuse to ignore them because they don't suit your views. Your patronising reduction of them to "ermahgerd" statements clearly shows that you have absolutely zero intention of even considering the other side, which is disappointing to me because I thought you were better than that, but it also shows that there's no point continuing this debate.
-
The point which I was trying to make is that positive rights legislation has generally been recognised to allow for exceptions, which is why the ICCPR might not be necessarily controlling when considering treatment of individuals. I think I made this point in a slightly better fashion in a later post.
Yeah, sorry, that was inappropriate, and was mostly a result of built-up frustration. I still regard the former argument as invalid by itself (just because the law says something it doesn't mean it's correct), and while the latter is valid, it's not absolute. My viewpoint (which I pretty unsuccessfully tried arguing) is that there are others considerations beyond the harm caused to the asylum seekers. Part of that counter-argument, which was almost completely ignored, was the underlying philosophy behind why and in which cases asylum should be granted. I sometimes feel like this is completely ignored in discussions about refugee policy, and the continuance of that in this discussion (despite my several attempts - as good or bad as they may have been) was what led to my frustration and the "ermagherd" comments.
I think legal and ethical issues have been mixed up too much in this discussion.
-
Sure. I will be the token Randian to be sneered at if that's what's needed to get a straight answer instead of smart-ass remarks out of you.
Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?
The fact that Randian philosophy (as poorly thought out and communicated as it is) has such a following means that quite a few people also feel the same "zero obligation" or "lack of humanity" or greed or selfishness or any name you wish to give it. Yet the criticisms I've seen for it are only ever snark remarks such as the commentary you provided, or choruses of people trying to out-do each other in Rand-bashing without mentioning any Randian ideologies.
Surely the cause for this debate boils down to the devide between the Randian ideology and the more utilitarian ideology (or however you choose to classify it). So, a proper critique please. Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?
There are plenty of detailed critiques of the ideology from a philosophical perspective. I find it hard to believe that you've never actually seen them, assuming you've bothered to go looking. Heck, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles that are a starting point.
As for snark...well...I think it's entirely appropriate for what Rand posits.