Australian Federal Election 2010

[little grey rabbit]

It's already been pointed out to you, Nauru won't work.

As for what option would I prefer, I don't think there is any easy way out of this, the issue is highly complex, but expoiting the misery of asylum seekers to get some cheap votes is just immoral.

Good Lord! Surely Labor, Greens and Liberals don't do anything so despicable????!!!

I don't believe it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Squirm?

This is the best fun ever.

Why and how will the carbon tax be repealed? Because unlike Gillard, Abbott will have a mandate to do so.

Why not tell me why it can't be repealed?

Tell me what Abbott is going to replace it with. He has a 'direct action' policy, that will cost billions, and require taxes to fund it. Economists roundly condemn it as being less efficient than a carbon tax.

When you look at all the policies Abbott will promise, it adds up to a massive cut in taxes coming in, with a significant rise in government expenditure. He is also promising his own personal tax rise for business to fund his maternity leave policy. Yet this tax is not subject to anything like the hysteria of a price in carbon. Yet his tax will mean an imposition on all Australians. The tax will be paid by companies, and all Australians have to deal with companies, or work for them. Prices will rise. Jobs will be lost. Abbott is increasing middle class welfare. Alan Jones and Bolt will be all over this. Or maybe not.

 

[lionking]

Abbott has no real answers. To Alfie's dismay, he is committed to action on climate change, but in a magical way which will cost nothing.

 

[Wildy]

Sounds like another very good reason not to get on a boat to me once you have attained safety away from one's country of origin.

But how do you know that these people have attained safety? Based on what you've been saying the 4000 Burmese refugees who are supposed to arrive under the Malaysia agreement haven't attained safety.

And this argument relies on the asylum seekers having this knowledge before they try and enter the country. Beyond that you're applying this as a reason not to try only through hindsight.

And who'd of thought, a genuine refugee escaping from a brutal regime and experiencing post traumatic stress end up having mental health problems. Colour us all unsurprised.

Except that these problems seem to be caused, or exacerbated, by being placed in detention/put on a TPV.

Yup.
Correlation does not prove causation;

But it sure is a hint.

And doesn't this apply to your claim that the PS worked?

...there may well be other factors...

Well then, perhaps you could provide some evidence for these "other factors"?

...and I did not see any expert conclusions outlining TPVs are a pull factor; only yours.

Quick question before I attempt to answer this, do you mean that you're looking for the exact phrase that "TPVs are a pull factor"?

The what the hell's your point?

I was using the report as evidence to support my claim. If you don't understand how this works then I'm sorry but I can't help you.

Let's try using some logic ok?
It was asserted that sending people back was killing them.
I ask why were they sent back given genuine refugees are ultimately allowed entry into Australia.
Sending them back is cruel! It is screamed.
Sure it is, says I. But why were they sent back.
You're JAQing off!
Incredulous is I.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I'm talking about things you said, not things that a third person said. The fact that you don't want to support your own statements suggest that you have no evidence behind them.

Perhaps you should read the words I actually say instead of the words you want to read.

Wrong again - but I'm sure you knew it.

What? So you were the one who brought up the idea that some of these people were terrorists and criminal or weren't you.

Others brought in the subject of the people who have been returned are being killed. I just want to know why they were sent back. Do you know?

No.

If you believe that returning refugees is cruel and deadly, it's very relevant.

Ah, so they're "refugees" now and not "criminals" or "terrorists". If Australia is sending genuine refugees back to places where they can be killed that's a violation of the Refugee Convention.

What should we do with the non genuine refugees once they get here?

This is a different question to the one you asked before, and would depend on why they were found to not be refugees.

Yep. In the absence of a better policy in terms of it being humane, fair, cost effective, safe, humane, etc, why not Nauru and the Pacific solution?

This is a non-answer to what I asked.

How does it raise this question?

Australia is supposed to provide all the legal protections they're supposed to provide even when these people are on Nauru. Why bother sending them to Nauru in the first place?

"Think"? "May"?
Could you be less certain?

Yes I could. Why don't you tell us when these "damaging leaks" were.

 

[Damien Evans]

He he. An hilarious parody.
I guess you don't know when your leg is being pulled do you? Silly me, of course you don't; you voted for Gillard. he he.

Any chance you could tell us why the Liberal party would replace Tony Abbott?

Oh! And just so you know: "Because he is stupid" or some other schoolboy-type jibe probably won't quite cut it.

In fact I'm fairly confident Lionking would have voted for Rob Mitchell.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's already been pointed out to you, Nauru won't work.

And it has been pointed out to you that it could. At worst it would need to be tested in court.

As for what option would I prefer, I don't think there is any easy way out of this, the issue is highly complex, but expoiting the misery of asylum seekers to get some cheap votes is just immoral.

But what do we do with the non genuine refugees? You don't want us to send them back because they might be killed, it sounds like you are having second thoughts about releasing them into society here. So what do we do?

But how do you know that these people have attained safety? Based on what you've been saying the 4000 Burmese refugees who are supposed to arrive under the Malaysia agreement haven't attained safety.

Well they won't have a 4% chance of sying at sea. I'd call that relatively safe.

Except that these problems seem to be caused, or exacerbated, by being placed in detention/put on a TPV.

You have provided no actual evidence of this (TPVs case mental health issues) .

But it sure is a hint.

Hints are not evidence.

And doesn't this apply to your claim that the PS worked?

Possibly, that would mean Gillard is wrong too. She knows that we have pull factors othewise she wouldn't be chasing offshore processing. That said, the evidence is somewhat more compelling than your TPV claim as we have more than just one correlation.

Quick question before I attempt to answer this, do you mean that you're looking for the exact phrase that "TPVs are a pull factor"?

That would be great, but what else have you got? How about a conclusion by an expert that has factored in all the considerations?

I was using the report as evidence to support my claim. If you don't understand how this works then I'm sorry but I can't help you.

The report outlines TPVs are a pull factor where?

This has nothing to do with what I said. I'm talking about things you said, not things that a third person said.

No. You said I was JAQing off. I provided a summary as to how things evolved before you accused me of same. My question about what we do with non genuine refugees is perfectly relevant in line with the discussion.

Ah, so they're "refugees" now and not "criminals" or "terrorists". If Australia is sending genuine refugees back to places where they can be killed that's a violation of the Refugee Convention.

Fair enough, a slip of the tongue so to speak, my mistake.
What should we do with the non genuine refugees?

Yes I could. Why don't you tell us when these "damaging leaks" were.

The leaks were last week. Don't you read the news?

 

[Wildy]

Well they won't have a 4% chance of sying at sea. I'd call that relatively safe.

So being caned for, as you put it, "being a refugee in Malaysia" counts as safety? Then why do you have a problem sending people to Malaysia since the country is relatively safe?

You have provided no actual evidence of this (TPVs case mental health issues) .

So quoting professional organisations who have done the research doesn't count as evidence? And why not?

Hints are not evidence.

It's a reference to a quote from Edward Tufte who said that "correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint".

Possibly, that would mean Gillard is wrong too. She knows that we have pull factors othewise she wouldn't be chasing offshore processing. That said, the evidence is somewhat more compelling than your TPV claim as we have more than just one correlation.

More than just one correlation still does not imply causation if you want to stick to the definition given by the maxim.

That would be great, but what else have you got? How about a conclusion by an expert that has factored in all the considerations?

Would you care to list all the considerations?

The report outlines TPVs are a pull factor where?

Try rereading what I said more carefully. And if you don't understand what a "citation" is (which is why I posted that link to begin with) then I can't help you.

No. You said I was JAQing off. I provided a summary as to how things evolved before you accused me of same. My question about what we do with non genuine refugees is perfectly relevant in line with the discussion.

About asylum seekers being "terrorists" or "criminals" which is what I was asking you to provide evidence of?

Fair enough, a slip of the tongue so to speak, my mistake.
What should we do with the non genuine refugees?

What evidence do you have that these people are "criminals" and "terrorists"?

The leaks were last week. Don't you read the news?

Well clearly I've missed that story.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So being caned for, as you put it, "being a refugee in Malaysia" counts as safety? Then why do you have a problem sending people to Malaysia since the country is relatively safe?

Indonesa is the relative safety I was talking about. Most of our boats come from there don't they? How many boats have come from Malaysia?

So quoting professional organisations who have done the research doesn't count as evidence? And why not?

Quote them all you like. Their research should provide some conclusions, what are they?

It's a reference to a quote from Edward Tufte who said that "correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint".

Indeed. And hints are still not evidence.

More than just one correlation still does not imply causation if you want to stick to the definition given by the maxim.

Lots of hints create a pattern which might eventually be considered as evidence. One hint is exactly that, one hint.

Would you care to list all the considerations?

I'm not an expert. Don't the experts in your evidence do that with their research? What are their conclusions?

About asylum seekers being "terrorists" or "criminals" which is what I was asking you to provide evidence of?

We will find the answer when AUP tells us why they were sent back, won't we?

What evidence do you have that these people are "criminals" and "terrorists"?

Again, I am waiting on AUP to provide this information to us.

Well clearly I've missed that story.

Hence my suggestion you expand your reading sources.

 

[Wildy]

Indonesa is the relative safety I was talking about. Most of our boats come from there don't they? How many boats have come from Malaysia?

Then you should actually read what I write rather than what you think I'm writing.

Quote them all you like. Their research should provide some conclusions, what are they?

I know it might seem circular but their conclusions as those links said, that it causes mental problems. If you look at the AMA link you'll find something at the bottom called a 'bibliography' which lists the sources that they used.

Indeed. And hints are still not evidence.

So you've failed to understand the quote, congratulations.

Lots of hints create a pattern which might eventually be considered as evidence. One hint is exactly that, one hint.

Nope. Firstly this statement follows on from your failure to understand a quote and secondly under your logic none of these so-called 'hints' can be considered evidence whether alone or in tandem because they are, as you have defined, not evidence.

I'm not an expert. Don't the experts in your evidence do that with their research? What are their conclusions?

So you don't know what these considerations are. How can you expect me to find a study that takes all of them into account?

We will find the answer when AUP tells us why they were sent back, won't we?

So you've got nothing.

Again, I am waiting on AUP to provide this information to us.

Again, you've got nothing.

It's not AUP that has to prove that the asylum seekers are "criminals" and "terrorists". It's you. You were the one who said that they were, so it is up to you to show that they are. I would have thought that you would be able to do that quite easily since I would have thought that it would have made the news.

Hence my suggestion you expand your reading sources.

Because people can't miss a story in the news can they?

 

[a_unique_person]

And it has been pointed out to you that it could. At worst it would need to be tested in court.



But what do we do with the non genuine refugees? You don't want us to send them back because they might be killed, it sounds like you are having second thoughts about releasing them into society here. So what do we do?

If they are at risk of being killed, I guess that makes them legitimate refugees by definition.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If they are at risk of being killed, I guess that makes them legitimate refugees by definition.

I don't think so. Guess again.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/faqs.html#whoref

WHO ARE REFUGEES?

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (and its 1967 Protocol), to which Australia is a signatory, defines a refugee as:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

The important parts of this definition are:

• that the person has to be outside their country of origin
• the reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution
• this fear of persecution has to be well founded (ie they have to have
• experienced it or be likely to experience it if they return)
• the persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition
• they have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country


So why were those so called refugees you have cited returned?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you don't know what these considerations are. How can you expect me to find a study that takes all of them into account?

Hey, it's your claim that TPVs are a pull factor, it's your job to show us why, not mine. Surely you have some expert research done that gives some conclusions. If that's a "No", then your claim falls flat on its' face.

It's not AUP that has to prove that the asylum seekers are "criminals" and "terrorists". It's you. You were the one who said that they were, so it is up to you to show that they are. I would have thought that you would be able to do that quite easily since I would have thought that it would have made the news.

Not quite right, I have asked why AUPs refugees were returned. Is it not possible they are criminals of some sort? Once AUP provides the evidence that we are returning innocent people we will have the answers we both want.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think so. Guess again.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/faqs.html#whoref

WHO ARE REFUGEES?

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (and its 1967 Protocol), to which Australia is a signatory, defines a refugee as:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

The important parts of this definition are:

• that the person has to be outside their country of origin
• the reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution
• this fear of persecution has to be well founded (ie they have to have
• experienced it or be likely to experience it if they return)
• the persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition
• they have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country


So why were those so called refugees you have cited returned?

So called refugees? Keep digging Alfie.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Your "guess" earlier about them seems incorrect given the definition I provided above. I need no further digging, the onus of proof is on you here so I will keep asking:

What do we do with non genuine refugees?

 

[Wildy]

Hey, it's your claim that TPVs are a pull factor, it's your job to show us why, not mine.

And I would have thought that I had but instead you've given the rather strange announcement that the evidence I provided doesn't mean anything.

Surely you have some expert research done that gives some conclusions. If that's a "No", then your claim falls flat on its' face.

Yes, but I don't know if it "factors in all the considerations" as you asked because I don't know what "all the considerations are".

Not quite right, I have asked why AUPs refugees were returned.

You also asked if we should "[a]llow any old criminal and terrorist into the country?" You were the one who implied that these people were terrorists not AUP.

Is it not possible they are criminals of some sort?

Possibly. It's also possible that they weren't. It's also possible that some of them were and some of them weren't.

Once AUP provides the evidence that we are returning innocent people we will have the answers we both want.

I don't remember AUP saying that these people weren't terrorists and criminals so I don't see why he should have to prove that they aren't.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Possibly. It's also possible that they weren't. It's also possible that some of them were and some of them weren't.

Exactly. It would be nice if someone would let us know why they were returned; I am waiting on this information.

I might point out that I have no evidence they were criminals or terrorists and I have been purely speculating; that should have been patently obvious.

My question was around why they were returned. Assuming they were they not genuine refugees what were they? In the absense of the information, you have conceded the possibility also that they may have been criminals.

So we wait on AUP.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your "guess" earlier about them seems incorrect given the definition I provided above. I need no further digging, the onus of proof is on you here so I will keep asking:

What do we do with non genuine refugees?

The people who died seemed to meet that definition of a refugee.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Evidence.

And even if they were - and at this point I do not believe it - what do we do with non genuine refugees?

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's go over the definition.

• that the person has to be outside their country of origin
*Yes.
• the reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution
*That was proven beyond doubt.
• this fear of persecution has to be well founded (ie they have to have
• experienced it or be likely to experience it if they return)
*Proven beyond doubt again.
• the persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition
*Check, fear of being killed, which is what happened, satisfies any grounds for persecution
• they have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then why were they sent back?

And what do we do with non genuine refugees in the future?