And the boats keep coming

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n-green-alliance/story-e6freuy9-1226416143160

While many in the Labor caucus are frustrated by the deal Julia Gillard signed with the Greens to form government in 2010, Mr Fitzgibbon is the first senior member of the government to openly call for the party to take an aggressive stance toward their coalition partners and "tackle them head on".

Writing exclusively in The Daily Telegraph today, the Hunter MP and former defence minister said the Greens' refusal to adopt offshore processing would result in more deaths at sea and greater profits for people smugglers.

"(The Greens) remain the only parliamentary group able to claim an unwillingness to compromise on a matter involving human rights and, indeed, human life," he writes.

"Those of us with greater responsibilities can afford no such luxuries."

The Morons greens and Gillard's inability to negotiate a deal will cause more deaths. This was predicted before the Pacific Solution was dismantled and continues to be the case.
 
Victorian Labor leader Daniel Andrews in the Age today.

Andrews is cognisant of the danger. Unlike his colleagues in Federal Parliament, he has no choice but to tackle the Greens head on.

The Greens, Andrews argues, may be policy purists, but they are also impractical, inflexible, arrogant, self-indulgent, impotent and economically illiterate. Labor may not be perfect, but at least it lives in the real world, with an understanding of the need for compromise.

To emphasise the point, Andrews highlights the refusal of Greens last month to yield ground in Federal Parliament to tackle the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, despite public support for a non-partisan compromise.

Great news: Finally some in Labor are starting to see what many of us have known for years.

As it stands, we have the morons Green's policy in place regarding asylum seekers, this policy of theirs (that Gillard endorsed) has cost about 800 lives so far.

Sarah Hanson Young responds with "accidents happen". Disgusting and stupid.

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrews' of the morons Greens summary above.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Victorian Labor leader Daniel Andrews in the Age today.

Andrews is cognisant of the danger. Unlike his colleagues in Federal Parliament, he has no choice but to tackle the Greens head on.

The Greens, Andrews argues, may be policy purists, but they are also impractical, inflexible, arrogant, self-indulgent, impotent and economically illiterate. Labor may not be perfect, but at least it lives in the real world, with an understanding of the need for compromise.

To emphasise the point, Andrews highlights the refusal of Greens last month to yield ground in Federal Parliament to tackle the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, despite public support for a non-partisan compromise.

Great news: Finally some in Labor are starting to see what many of us have known for years.

As it stands, we have the morons Green's policy in place regarding asylum seekers, this policy of theirs (that Gillard endorsed) has cost about 800 lives so far.
Sarah Hanson Young responds with "accidents happen". Disgusting and stupid.

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrews' of the morons Greens summary above.
Click to expand...

I haven't been following the debate so could you justify that claim?

ETA: I added the second highlight.
 
Last edited:
The government estimates that 4% of asylum seekers who get on boats perish at sea
There have been over 20,000 arrivals since Labor dismantled the Pacific Solution.

Chris Bowen.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-budge-on-nauru/story-fn59niix-1226134614843.

He urged colleagues not to forget that four per cent of asylum seekers who got on boats drowned at sea, with last year's Christmas Island tragedy an argument for offshore processing.
 
And Abbott's plan to tow boats back is a good one? Nice. Classy.

Worst Opposition Leader ever
 
She is responsible for up to 800 dead at sea.
I think you should be wary of making comparisons.

Worst pm ever!
 
Gillard is prepared to compromise, Abbott says no compromise, not even to see what works. There is a Malaysia 'solution', but Abbott won't see if it works, because, if it does, he loses votes. Who is to blame for this again?

He can't even say how his turn the boats around policy will work.
 
So if Abbott wins and implements this "turn ALL the boats around" policy, how will he make sure that the boats aren't sabotaged to prevent them from being turned around?
 
Wildy said:
So if Abbott wins and implements this "turn ALL the boats around" policy, how will he make sure that the boats aren't sabotaged to prevent them from being turned around?
Click to expand...

That seems to happen already.

By the way, Abbott (nor anyone else that I am aware of) has ever said "turn ALL the boats around", but only "when safe to do so".
 
a_unique_person said:
Gillard is prepared to compromise, Abbott says no compromise, not even to see what works. There is a Malaysia 'solution', but Abbott won't see if it works, because, if it does, he loses votes. Who is to blame for this again?
Click to expand...

Gillard and the Greens.

Abbott had one requirement on the table that would have got the deal through last fortnight. Gillard refused to play.

Gillard also has continually said in defense of some decisions that she has made them in light of the parliament she has been given. But this time she doesn't want to use that same parliament.

If she really wanted a deal, she could have got one.

Who is to blame? All of them (our parliament). Who is most to blame? Gillard, who is playing politics at its most disgusting levels.
Worst PM ever.
 
What about Abbott's plan to tow boats back to Indonesia, which hasn't signed the refugee convention? Do you support this?
 
No I don't like it much at all. I can see how it would be an additional deterrent though.

That said, I can understand the logic. A few thoughts:
The asylum seekers have (as I think you pointed out) often flown into Indonesia escaping their alleged persecution. Once safe in Indonesia they pay lots of money to the people smugglers, tear up their passports and board a boat to Christmas Island.
Why didn't they simply stay safe in Indonesia?

Also, Australia (and any other sovereign country) is entitled to protect its borders (or waters) from the uninvited. We do not know who these people are, they are for all intents an purposes illegal arrivals. Escorting them back to their home port (the origin of the boat's departure) seems quite reasonable, especially if the boat
- is seaworthy enough
- has not entered our waters and/or remains in international (or Indonesian) waters.

Remember too, that "turning the boats around when safe to do so" is only part of a suite of measures that the coalition has as policy - it is not the solution.

They have had the same policy for 10 years and they argue "it worked before, it can work again". I have seen no argument yet that could convince me otherwise.


But tell me, do you like Gillard's Malaysian proposal? A country that gaols and beats refugees with the rattan. A country that has not signed the UNHRC either.

Does it sound like a good idea to you?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Malaysian option is good for me. And surely you place no great weight on signing the refugee convention when places like Columbia and Uganda are signatories.
 
lionking said:
Yes, the Malaysian option is good for me. And surely you place no great weight on signing the refugee convention when places like Columbia and Uganda are signatories.
Click to expand...

So you are comfortable with us having no control in the treatment of those we send there? That they are potentially gaoled and beaten with a rattan?

Really? You are OK with this? And yet you are concerned about the remote possibility of just a few being taken back to their home port.

Do you even hear yourself?

Incredible!
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbotts-a-coward-says-gillard-20120708-21p25.html

Abbott's a coward, says Gillard

Sounds like Gillard is into hate speech. Nice, classy.

Worst PM ever.
Click to expand...
Criticising somebody for 'hate speech' when they called somebody a 'coward' is silly. It can hardly be called 'hate speech'.

I'd say that repeatedly calling people 'morons' (like you do) is less classy than calling somebody a 'coward'. Perhaps you could avoid a sense of hypocrisy by stopping that.
 
Alan said:
Criticising somebody for 'hate speech' when they called somebody a 'coward' is silly. It can hardly be called 'hate speech'.

I'd say that repeatedly calling people 'morons' (like you do) is less classy than calling somebody a 'coward'. Perhaps you could avoid a sense of hypocrisy by stopping that.
Click to expand...

I'm not the PM and I am pointing out her hypocrisy. She is in charge of leading the country and setting examples; it is after all, her "new paradigm". ;)

The only people I call morons are the morons Greens and frankly they are.
And for what it's worth, the only people I abuse are those who abuse me first - I never have been one for turning the other cheek. :rolleyes:
 
A.A. Alfie said:
So you are comfortable with us having no control in the treatment of those we send there? That they are potentially gaoled and beaten with a rattan?

Really? You are OK with this? And yet you are concerned about the remote possibility of just a few being taken back to their home port.

Do you even hear yourself?

Incredible!
Click to expand...

You haven't really been following this have you?

The Malaysian deal is reciprocal. We will be taking more of their own refugees than they will be processing, and they will undertake to treat the asylum seekers properly, or guess what? We won't take their refugees in return.

Unless, of course, you simply don't trust the Malaysians because, well, they are shifty, untrustworthy Malaysians.

Beating asylum seekers we send there with rattans? What false, emotive rubbish.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Beating asylum seekers we send there with rattans? What false, emotive rubbish.
Click to expand...

Orly?

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/25548/

Sending asylum seekers to Malaysia risks their lives

Amnesty International's 2010 report A Blow to Humanity: Torture by Judicial Caning in Malaysia stated that 6000 refugees are caned there every year.

Across Malaysia, government officials regularly tear into the flesh of prisoners with rattan canes travelling up to 160km/h. The cane shreds the victim's naked skin, turns the fatty tissue into pulp, and leaves permanent scars that extend all the way to muscle fibres," the report stated.
Click to expand...

Still in favour of Malaysia?
Still think it "false, emotive rubbish?
Who is it really who isn't across this issue?
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Orly?

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/25548/
Click to expand...

Yet another lie. These are not refugees we sent to Malaysia. You have clearly implied that this will be the fate awaiting refugees we send there, which is not right. The refugees we will (hopefully soon) send there will get better treatment than those already there:

Ms Gillard says asylum seekers will be allowed to work and integrated into the community.

"Those sent to Malaysia will be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with human rights," she said.

"They will not be subject to any of the penalties imposed on illegal entrants - that means they will not be arrested and will not be caned.

"To ensure the welfare of the asylum seekers transferred, there will be an overseeing committee that will include members of the UNHCR."
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/malaysia-signs-refugee-deal/2809512

I find it utterly amazing that you are siding with Human Rights Watch (about as left as they come), and yes the Greens on this issue. Generated out of clear hatred for that woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom