And the boats keep coming

lionking said:
Yet another lie.
Click to expand...

No lie from me mate. Read it again.

lionking said:
These are not refugees we sent to Malaysia.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were. I am pointing out their history of systemic abuse.

lionking said:
You have clearly implied that this will be the fate awaiting refugees we send there, which is not right.
Click to expand...

No, I stated there was the potential - Gillard can give no assurances in this area, how can she? How do you know she isn't just lying again? She has form you know. ;)

Malaysia has a history of the abuse. It is entirely possible this could occur given there is nothing to stop them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yxCFn6gock&lr=1&uid=REPamP892LJnJfJNWYKfPQ

"Caning in Malaysia has hit epidemic proportions," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Director. "In every case that we examined, the punishment amounted to torture, which is absolutely prohibited under any circumstances." In recent years, Malaysia has increased the number of penal offenses subject to caning to more than 60. Since 2002, when Parliament made immigration violations such as illegal entry subject to caning, tens of thousands of refugees and migrant workers have been caned. In Malaysian prisons specially trained caning officers tear into victims' bodies with a metre-long cane swung with both hands at high speed. The cane rips into the victim's naked skin, pulps the fatty tissue below, and leaves scars that extend to muscle fibre. The pain is so severe that victims often lose consciousness. The Malaysian government does not punish officers for their actions. Instead, it trains officers how to conduct caning and pays them a bonus for each stroke. Many double their income through their caning work. Others take bribes to intentionally miss, sparing their victims. State-employed doctors also play an integral role in caning. They examine victims and certify their fitness to be caned. When victims lose consciousness during caning, they revive them so the punishment can continue. After caning, some victims suffer long-term physical disabilities. "The role that Malaysian doctors play in facilitating deliberate pain and injury through caning is absolutely contrary to international medical ethics," said Sam Zarifi. "Instead of treating the victims, doctors are assisting in their torture and ill-treatment." Malaysian officials and state employees who are complicit in torture are liable to prosecution worldwide under universal jurisdiction for grave human rights crimes such as these, Amnesty International said.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
The refugees we will (hopefully soon) send there will get better treatment than those already there:
Click to expand...

So you "hope" we send these people to Malaysia!?!? - a country with an appalling record on human rights, a country that is not a signatory to the UNHCR (for obvious reasons), a country that has a track record of abuse. And you "hope" we send them there?

Firstly you call it false emotive rubbish, when evidence is provided you move the goal posts and call me a liar. And you finally insult every one elses intelligence - not to mention your own near bankrupt credibility - by calling on a statement from Gillard as some sort of assurance that Malaysia will obey UNHRC laws despite not being a signatory.

Incredible!

lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am doing no such thing. I am providing evidence from Amnesty international (not Human Rights Watch - whoever they are) and, unlike some, am making my own mind up after exploring the facts.
As for supporting the greens, LOL.

You can continue to support Malaysia all you like. The reality is it is a bad deal for Australia, it is short sighted and worst, it is an abomination for the asylum seekers themselves.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Which has nothing to do with the refugees we will send there.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I missed your weasely "we send".


lionking said:
I cited an agreement between the two nations that these refugees will not be caned
Click to expand...

Show me the agreement. If not, this still stands:

So you "hope" we send these people to Malaysia!?!? - a country with an appalling record on human rights, a country that is not a signatory to the UNHCR (for obvious reasons), a country that has a track record of abuse. And you "hope" we send them there?

The you use a statement (not any agreement that I saw) from Gillard as some sort of assurance that Malaysia will obey UNHRC laws despite not being a signatory. All this in spite of their appalling Human Rights record, systemic abuse of asylum seekers, no laws to ensure they comply? You would send them there anyway.

Incredible!

Then there was this:

Originally Posted by lionking
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.
Click to expand...

I am doing no such thing. I am providing evidence from Amnesty international (not Human Rights Watch - whoever they are) and, unlike some, am making my own mind up after exploring the facts.
As for supporting the greens, LOL.

You can continue to support Malaysia all you like. The reality is it is a bad deal for Australia, it is short sighted and worst, it is an abomination for the asylum seekers themselves.
 
He's going to have fun dealing with Indonesia when he finally takes the Lodge:

Howard learned first-hand what could happen when there was a breakdown. When his relationship with Megawati Sukarnoputri hit a rough spot, boats started turning up again.

''A non co-operative Indonesia can really create a lot of problems in Australia,'' said Greg Fealy, an associate professor of Indonesian politics at the Australian National University.

But if elected, Abbott's biggest hurdle will be fulfilling his twin aims of strengthening that relationship while maintaining his tough line on asylum seekers of ''turning back the boats when safe to do so''.

It now appears the subject was not raised when Abbott met SBY in Darwin - and for good reason.

As was reported last week, when it was raised on the sidelines in talks with the government and officials, Indonesia would have none of it. Among those who conveyed that message was the Foreign Minister, Marty Natalegawa.

The official familiar with the exchanges said: ''It's a joke. He will not be able to have a constructive relationship with Indonesia and tow boats back. Indonesia made it clear to us.''

It may well be in Abbott's best interest to let that piece of his policy slide quietly into obscurity.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...indonesians-20120708-21p9f.html#ixzz207HYNbdg
Click to expand...
 
bit_pattern said:
He's going to have fun dealing with Indonesia when he finally takes the Lodge:
Click to expand...

Good. It is not a great idea to start with. Letting it "slide into obscurity" is good advice.

How's the air up there on the high nmoral ground BP? Up to 800 dead and you advocate endangering more for political reasons only.

Disgusting.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Good. It is not a great idea to start with. Letting it "slide into obscurity" is good advice.

How's the air up there on the high nmoral ground BP? Up to 800 dead and you advocate endangering more for political reasons only.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the sort of transcendent retort I had in mind when I said: I'm ... trying to elevate the tone of the political debate in these threads beyond hysterically pitched partisan hyperbole and emotive hand wringing that typifies the narrative with which you try to dominate the discussion.

As such, I will not be engaging your shrill diversionary tactics, in fact I will try to avoid engaging you wherever possible and would appreciate if you reciprocate

:)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
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".
Click to expand...

So basically what we are seeing here is a "policy" that is designed to appeal to certain groups of people but would be in fact ineffective in practise since we wouldn't see situations where it would be safe to do so.
 
Wildy said:
So basically what we are seeing here is a "policy" that is designed to appeal to certain groups of people but would be in fact ineffective in practise since we wouldn't see situations where it would be safe to do so.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it quite that way. Perhaps this way:

One small part of a policy that acts as an additional deterrent to the overall suite of measures within the major policy. It is probably little more than a threat and it is doubtful it would ever be used.
 
a_unique_person said:
I have said all along, stopping people from turning up on our shores is not solving the problem, it is just of way of letting the problem fade away.
Click to expand...

I agree it does not solve the problem - if you mean at the source. But of the policies on the table (None - green, Malaysia - Labor, Pacific - Coalition) what would you advocate? Or, have you something else in mind?

But I am interested on your actual thoughts on Malaysia. Is it humane? Is it safe for the asylum seekers? A good deal for Australia?

a_unique_person said:
What are you thoughts on sending people back to Malaysia, or sabotaging boats by draining fuel from them?
Click to expand...

I have stated my objections to Malaysia in fairly strenuous terms I'd have thought.
Who is advocating sabotaging boats by draining fuel? If you are talking of "turning the boats around when safe to do so" I have already said I don't like it. If it's something else, please let me know.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they aren't safe in Indonesia? Unless being beaten by guards counts as being safe.

The photos in here are of a man in a different Indonesian camp who was beaten after trying to escape.

And another instance of an asylum seeker being beaten to death.

I guess that means that they are perfectly safe there huh?

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.
Click to expand...

Except that a) These people are seeking asylum and have the right to do so in whatever manner possible and b) they would only be "illegal arrivals" if that have been processed and found to not be refugees. The only way this argument would even work is if Australia adopted the half-arsed approach of saying that all boat arrivals aren't refugees to being with and I don't think that even Tony Abbott is brazen enough to suggest such a thing.

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.
Click to expand...

If the boat is in Indonesian waters it's up to the Indonesians to deal with it. Unless you think that Australia has every right to just send their warships into Indonesian waters whenever they see a boat full of asylum seekers.

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.
Click to expand...

So our choice is between a country that beats refugees with a rattan or a country where the people are beaten with other things, sometimes to death, neither of which have signed the refugee convention.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
I wouldn't put it quite that way. Perhaps this way:

One small part of a policy that acts as an additional deterrent to the overall suite of measures within the major policy. It is probably little more than a threat and it is doubtful it would ever be used.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's going to act as a deterrent at all. I would say that all that would happen is that they'd just sabotage their boats as a matter of course forcing us to deal with them.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I agree it does not solve the problem - if you mean at the source. But of the policies on the table (None - green, Malaysia - Labor, Pacific - Coalition) what would you advocate? Or, have you something else in mind?

But I am interested on your actual thoughts on Malaysia. Is it humane? Is it safe for the asylum seekers? A good deal for Australia?



I have stated my objections to Malaysia in fairly strenuous terms I'd have thought.
Who is advocating sabotaging boats by draining fuel? If you are talking of "turning the boats around when safe to do so" I have already said I don't like it. If it's something else, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Tony Abbott of course.

Mr Abbott acknowledged towing boats to Indonesian waters would be a dangerous task, but said people joined the armed forces to put themselves in harm's way to serve their country.

Navy personnel would board boats to ensure they were seaworthy, and remove fuel from the vessel so it would have only enough to return to Indonesia.
Click to expand...

http://www.margaretrivermail.com.au...-came-from-says-abbott-indonesia/2617217.aspx
 
Wildy said:
So our choice is between a country that beats refugees with a rattan or a country where the people are beaten with other things, sometimes to death, neither of which have signed the refugee convention.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I am not going to debate turning the boats around. I don't agree with it anyway.

Wildy said:
I don't think it's going to act as a deterrent at all. I would say that all that would happen is that they'd just sabotage their boats as a matter of course forcing us to deal with them.
Click to expand...

That sounds suspiciously like the kids overboard strategy. Do you really think people would place the lives of their children at risk that way?

And for what it is worth, I think it would act as an additional deterrent coupled with the rest of their policy. You disagree and I respect that. As I say, I have no love for this part of their policy at all.

a_unique_person said:
Tony Abbott of course.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that sabotage. But whatever.

Malaysia? Thoughts please?
What policy do you advocate? Is it the Greens policy that has so far been responsible for up to 800 deaths?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
That sounds suspiciously like the kids overboard strategy.
Click to expand...

You mean the "strategy" that was made up by the Howard government in order to further their agenda?

Do you really think people would place the lives of their children at risk that way?
Click to expand...

Well if the Coalition re-introduce their policy of not allowing family reunion rights to boat arrivals then that is a very real possibility isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom