Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Then and now

This is what Chris Bowen said in 2006. What a contrast to the ALP Government's current behaviour:

Coalition attempts to excise Australian mainland from migration zone
Posted August 10, 2006


Mr BOWEN (Prospect) (10.17 a.m.) In 1951 the United Nations convention for the protection of refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many Western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, “Never again.” I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And again our worthless media lead the cheer squads

I am still suffering post traumatic stress after the forced deportation of the Bakhtiyari kids, yet Gillard thinks she has the right to do this vile human tradiing, trading even the Herald Sun can't stomach, and how are our media behaving?

They have a prattle to this one and that one and they never ask Bowen why he chose the worst place in the world for refugees.

Not one of the morons has asked that basic question, yet they prattle and babble like gangs of gnats discussing things.

We are trading innocent human beings, sending in armed cops to illegally deport them to a country where they will probably die in jail like more than 1300 others have.

They now use the excuse that they don't want to see people drown - well just 158 kids have drowned on their way to Australia but there were 500 Australian kids drown over the same 10 years and 90 million kids died of starvation.

But we have to go through this vile trading to appease whom?

No-one like it, it is not legal, the UNHCR have not endorsed it and once again we look like the vicious, racist areshole place that we are.

Article 31 of the refugee convention forbids punishment due to method of arrival, but hey we are fucking Australian's run by gnats.

2+2= 5

I still don't get it.

If they take four thousand people from Malaysia, why must they send eight hundred to Malaysia. Why not not just take three thousand two hundred and call it square( tongue in cheek)

As if eight hundred battlers would break this country?

Ignorant, lazy politics

Supported by ignorant, lazy media.

Another gate crashing down


When one considers that the parliament have been aware for nearly a decade that not one person has ever been charged with or incarcerated for people smuggling one would have thought the media might have noticed before today.

  1. How many so-called smugglers have jailed and persecuted refugees, shot at them, tear gassed them and treated them worse than mass murderers?
  2. How come it is illegal to charge minors under the illegal people smuggling law but perfectly legal to jail indefinitely unaccompanied children and even deny them refuge under the refugee convention?  I thought the refugees were the victims.
  3. What is the so-called message being sold when even DIAC admit that only 6 people out of over 5000 knew anything about getting residence?
  4. Why does he ignore the convenant on civil and political rights which guarantees the right to enter or leave any country, the universal declaration of human rights article 13, the refugee convention article 31 and the smuggling protocol which exempts refugee movements?
  5. How come the so-called smugglers get full legal assistance while the refugees don't?

Under the stairs

Saw it on the news. The government announced it has its agreement with the Malaysians but was knocked back by Manus Island, I think. And grubs like Abbott and Hockey then trying to exploit it after spending nearly a decade creating it by then putting it all on Labor.

It's a tie for chutzpah and still thousands of miserable people wait for a break elsewhere.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago