Australian Federal Election 2010

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

2PP 45:55

No change. In a week that was supposed to see the Gillard Government have it over the coalition via the carbon (dioxide) tax and the boat people problems.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-24/aslym-seeker-sex-assault-claim/3597798

Asylum seeker reports sexual assault on boat

Assuming these allegations are true. What should we do with the rapists who arrive here by boat?

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-24/aslym-seeker-sex-assault-claim/3597798

Asylum seeker reports sexual assault on boat

Assuming these allegations are true. What should we do with the rapists who arrive here by boat?

What do we do with rapists who arrive here by plane? I'd treat them both the same.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What do we do with rapists who arrive here by plane? I'd treat them both the same.

Which is?

So what do we do with non genuine refugees and/or those that may be criminals?

 

[Wildy]

Does that mean you are just JAQing off?

Nope. It means I'm asking for clarification.

That suggests to me you have been extremely dishonest in your discussions here.

In what way am I being dishonest?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Hey Wildy! (and others)
What should we do with non genuine refugees?
What would you do with rapists and other criminals that arrive here?

These are genuine questions, an honest person would answer them.

 

[Wildy]

Hey Alfie! (and Alfie)
Apparently answering questions is honest.
Why haven't you told me how I'm being dishonest?

It's a genuine question, a honest person would answer it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Apparently answering questions is honest.

Yep.

Why haven't you told me how I'm being dishonest?

By not answering, by deflecting, through disingenuous responses etc. These could all be construed as dishonest in my opinion.

It's a genuine question, a honest person would answer it.

Done.

Your turn:

What should we do with non genuine refugees?
What would you do with rapists and other criminals that arrive here?

 

[Wildy]

By not answering, by deflecting, through disingenuous responses etc. These could all be construed as dishonest in my opinion.

So asking for clarification is disingenuous?

But you accused me of being dishonest because I said I don't trust you. How exactly is this the case?

What should we do with non genuine refugees?

If "non genuine refugees" means people who have been determined to not be refugees then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't send them back.

If "non genuine refugees" means refugees who are considered to be "non genuine" because of their method of arrival then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be let into the country since they've been determined to be refugees anyway.

Of course I'm not an expert in international and refugee law so of course I'd be asking for the advice of those who are, especially since in both cases non-refoulment may apply.

What would you do with rapists and other criminals that arrive here?

If you're talking about the recent allegations I would want to see an investigation into them and then if a crime has been committed see them stand trial for it. Since I don't know too much about refugee law I don't know how this would affect asylum claims though.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So asking for clarification is disingenuous?

If one has been engaging in a long faux conversation, asking questions and not answering any seems dishonest and/or disingenuous to me.

But you accused me of being dishonest because I said I don't trust you. How exactly is this the case?

That was not my intention, I was accusing you of dishonest posting given the above. If it came over as something else it was unintentional.

If "non genuine refugees" means people who have been determined to not be refugees then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't send them back.

That is my view too.

If "non genuine refugees" means refugees who are considered to be "non genuine" because of their method of arrival then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be let into the country since they've been determined to be refugees anyway.

Good point and a reasonable distinction to make. I agree here too.

If you're talking about the recent allegations I would want to see an investigation into them and then if a crime has been committed see them stand trial for it. Since I don't know too much about refugee law I don't know how this would affect asylum claims though.

I wonder where they would stand trial given the allegation presumably occurred in international waters?

That aside, let's assume they are found guilty of the crime. I would have no hesitation in returning them.


Now was that so hard?


AUP! You hoo!
It's your turn now.

 

[a_unique_person]

AUP! You hoo!
It's your turn now.

I told you already, they already have procedures for dealing with criminals, same as people who fly in, same as immigrants.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I told you already, they already have procedures for dealing with criminals, same as people who fly in, same as immigrants.

Does that mean you agree with them?

Going by your earlier posts and the suggestion from your examples - that's how this line of discussion started remember? - that they were innocent (and presumably genuine) refugees it would seem not.

What should we do with the non genuine refugees?
Why were your examples sent back?

 

[Wildy]

I wonder where they would stand trial given the allegation presumably occurred in international waters?

Then it would probably be covered by the Convention on the High Seas.

That aside, let's assume they are found guilty of the crime. I would have no hesitation in returning them.

Then non-refoulment applies, you may not be able to legally return them.

Now was that so hard?

Considering you didn't want to clarify when asked, yes.

 

[Damien Evans]

Then it would probably be covered by the Convention on the High Seas.

Depending on the route the boat took they may not have ever been on the high seas. It's perfectly possible they went straight from Indonesian waters to Australian waters, they do intersect for quite a long way.

 

[Wildy]

Depending on the route the boat took they may not have ever been on the high seas. It's perfectly possible they went straight from Indonesian waters to Australian waters, they do intersect for quite a long way.

Especially if the boats were, for some reason or another, heading more or less in the direction of Christmas Island where there is no 'international waters' to speak of.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

AUP. You are rather silent at the moment.....

Does that mean you agree with them?

Going by your earlier posts and the suggestion from your examples - that's how this line of discussion started remember? - that they were innocent (and presumably genuine) refugees it would seem not.

What should we do with the non genuine refugees?
Why were your examples sent back?

Popcorn?

 

[Wildy]

Considering that you didn't really discuss anything when I answered the question why exactly should AUP answer these questions? They aren't furthering discussion are they?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I am interested in hearing from him, this was his point after all.

I have more popcorn, want some?

 

[a_unique_person]

I answered already. Stuff your face.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No you didn't.

Why were your refugees sent back?
What should we do with non genuine refugees?

Maybe you would like some ice cream instead?