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

2001 – 2011: Here We Go Again

In the past ten years the Howard and now the Gillard governments have done everything they can think of to pretend that asylum seekers are breaking some arcane law by entering here on boats, and have become increasingly shrill and harsh in their rhetoric. Here’s a 10 year retrospective of events.

26 August 2001 – Howard demands the Tampa not enter Australia after Australia had asked them to rescue 433 people on the sinking ship Palapa. It was discovered by David Marr later that planes had flown over the stalled boat for two days pondering whether or not to rescue them. Eventually Australia asked the good Captain Arne Rinnan to do so. (All details in Dark Victory, Marr and Wilkinson.) It was discovered much later that this was the first group of refugees forced onto the boat in Indonesia while not one other had been by force.

September 26 2001 – up comes Howard’s deluded Pacific Solution where Nauru was bribed hundreds of millions to illegally jail and brutalise refugees, most came here later on anyway. (Susan Metcalfe, The Pacific Solution, Michael Gordon, Saving Ali.)

8 October 2001 – Howard and Ruddock claim refugees had thrown their children into the sea to “blackmail the government” into accepting them as refugees. Two days before the November election Natalie O'Brien of the Australian discovered that it was not true and later the Certain Maritime Incident inquiry (all documents on sievx.com) discovered that it was not only not true but the government knew it was not true.

19 October 2001 – 146 children, 142 women and 65 men drown on the SIEVX after being forced onto the boat at gunpoint in Indonesia, having their phones all taken away and some were beaten by Abu Quesay and his thugs. There were dozens of ships in the area and planes in the sky but all claimed they knew nothing. It was discovered months later in the Senate inquiry that the departments had known of Abu Quessay buying and stocking the boat, and that they knew the numbers of passengers, who they were and where they came from. In fact it was a monstrous cover up blown in a flash by Mark Bonser of the coast guard who said they had known of the vessel as early as July. To this day the AFP will not release the names of the dead and no-one has discovered who doctored the flights for that day and whited out the rescue vessel on 20 October. (Tony Kevin, A Certain Maritime Incident.)

All of these facts are well known along with details of riots, abuse and deaths in custody up to 2007. (Human Rights Overboard, Briskman et al, Blind Conscience, Margot O'Neill.)

In 2007 Kevin Rudd was elected in a landslide with promises of more humane and decent treatment of asylum seekers, but he maintained the refugee prison on Christmas Island while not using the main “concentration” camp. Chris Evans did a reasonably good job of keeping it low key along with Bob Debus and a mere 7,000 refugees arrived in three years – apparently too many for Julia Gillard.

There were no stories of riots, no stories of self-harm, people were being released very quickly with 99.7% of those Afghans who applied being accepted on their first interview – something that was used against them later.

Then the wheels fell off as the racists again took command and the media would not shut up. The Age was egregious, with Tom Allard showing pictures of little boats all the time and making up silly stories of “people smuggling rings” and how they are operating out of Indonesia and getting sneakier as we got meaner. Paul Maley in the Australian started rant after rant about “people smugglers” and even though I sent him all the information showing that it is not people smuggling he keeps right on doing it to this day.

Rudd made two dreadful calls – he had SBY stop a group of 250 Sri Lankan Tamils who then stayed in the port of Merak on that boat for six months, most made it here anyway in the end and some like 9 year old Brindha are still in prison denied refuge.

He had a group of 78 saved by the Oceanic Viking and, instead of obeying the law of non-refoulement after finding out they were already designated refugees, he forced them illegally into prison in Indonesia where they faced torture and beatings. Over 18 months later 17 of them were still in a transit camp in Romania and Bowen had to accept them.

Now we have this mess today where Bowen has a brain snap and decides that the best way to “stop people smugglers” is to punish the victims and send them to prison in the worst place in the region for refugees – but only 800 of them.

Nicola Roxon called it when she stated on Q&A that 800 was a deliberately large enough number to torture to “send a message” to not come to Australia, 50 was too few and 4,000 too many she said.

Of course under Article 3 of the Convention is it illegal to discriminate, under Article 16 all must have access to courts (something that annoys both major parties), under Article 31 punishment of any kind is forbidden, Article 32 forbids expulsion for any reason and Article 33 forbids refoulement to any place where the refugees cannot be guaranteed safety. But what do the lazy bigots in our parliament care?

Nothing, it would seem, as they sit silently by as we slide inexorably back into the business of forced human trading.

Sadly for our politicians and media we do have a nation run on the rule of law, therefore appeals to the highest court are legal and binding and it would be hard to see how our High Court would consider it legal to break the law the High Court handed down in November last year that says the law applies to all in our territory and natural justice applies even to those we jail on Christmas Island.

Now some stats:

$1.24 billion on detention in three years, $772 million in 2010/11 even though 40% of the refugees incarcerated had already been granted status.

In spite of claims to the contrary Afghans are still being accepted over 90% of the time with only 47 out of 4300 refused.

The courts are finally questioning the lunacy called “people smuggling” after lawyers discovered young Indonesian kids jailed with pedophiles and murderers in adult prisons and the courts set them free.

And the reality is the same as it was 12 years ago when Ruddock invented the people smuggling nonsense, we have not jailed a single person for people smuggling.

All court transcripts are available here: http://www.sievx.com/articles/sentences/dirlist.php

See where they all say: “this is clearly not people smuggling?

Last year, though, the Senate passed a bill making it a crime to send money home to refugee families in case it is used for “people smuggling”. Which is absurd, it is nothing short of advocating genocide if people are forced to stay home.

But we wait on the High Court and torment and torture innocent people in the meantime so Gillard can prove she is as “resolute” and cruel as her hero Ruddock.


Comment viewing options

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

Onshore processing?

The Government announced the decision to use bridging visas as part of its onshore processing plan for asylum seekers after the Malaysia refugee swap deal collapsed.

Mr Bowen says his department has approved 27 bridging visas for asylum seekers but expects that figure will rise to about 100 a month.

"At least that's what I see as being the initial - 100 a month - and we'll see how it goes," Mr Bowen said.

"Numbers over and above that into the future depend on the rates of arrivals."

Well, at last we have onshore processing.

Let's hope it lasts, and that the world doesn't fall in.

Well off shore does not exist

If anyone actually tried to apply really offshore they would be told to get lost.

If all 148 refugee signatory nations tried to push away refugees like we keep trying to do then we would be back before 1938.

Bowen is a shameful little turd.

It's not about refugees

Marilyn, it is about people who had identification papers in their lives, 100 points, had lives, rich people, but arrive with nothing, zero identification.  Just arrive.  Yet have not fled to Australia directly from their home countries, have typically travelled by air from places outside those countries to other places where they can board boats, deliberately avoided flying directly to Australia.

Prima facie they are not genuine refugees, although the scheming of the boat operators has no doubt included the procuring of some genuine refugees to be dispersed among them.

The High Court by its decision (a highly dubious one, sharply criticised by its dissenting member) has prevented genuine refugees from Sudan, waiting their turn in refugee camps rather than jumping the queue (perhaps because they are dirt poor rather than filthy rich and so can neither buy air tickets nor pay twice as much as an airline ticket to engage in the stunt of a trip in a leaky boat), from coming to Australia within reasonable and treaty-compliant quota levels.

The High Court's dubious decision has done nothing but hurt genuine refugees.  Marilyn Shepherd rejoices therefore. 

The Malaysia deal was to bring 4,000 genuine refugees to Australia.  Marilyn Shepherd hates it therefore.  They were coming in exchange for persons who are essentially invaders, whose method of invasion is to get rid of their identification and do a deal with criminals.  Marilyn Shepherd covers us with curses and spittle on behalf of those invaders.

Our sympathy should not be wasted on those whose patience is wearing thin in Australian camps and have now proceeded to the next stage in their strategy, having placed themselves under our eyes and in a position to work up and play on that sympathy.  There are people in overseas camps in absolutely miserable conditions, far worse, with documented identities, known genuine refugees.  Marilyn Shepherd campaigns in effect to keep them  in their misery, that far more severe misery than anything in Australia, which they bear so bravely.

All that said, the government should be making special provision for the Hazaras, should readily, or more readily, accept that they are refugees.  But mind, there are murderous Islamic extremists among the Hazaras, too.  It goes with the religion. 

No papers needed

People do not have to have papers to seek asylum and they don't have any obligation to stay in any country that has no legal assessment process.

 Why do I continually have to debunk this?


...you are dealing with emotion, fueled by the usual propaganda Marilyn, but we know that already.

You know, I've never meet a modern day refugee  (I wonder how many Australians really have?), but I've met olden days ones, you know, wogs, jews and the like.

As such, I have no reason to fear refugees, displace persons, or those who just want a nice place to live, rather, I reckon the wogs, jews and like are pretty cool, fun, entertaining and bloody productive.

Anyway, I'll say it again folks: it ain't gunna be (modern day) refugees who suck the heart and soul outa our lucky country; it will be the greedy bastards who have done such a splendid job in Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Spain, America, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, England and and...

Just wait...

I have

The Hazara and the most gentle people on earth.  At parties, BBQ's and weddings, of which they have plenty, the men cook and serve women first.  At one wedding I was outside with some of the gorgeous girls I met at the Catholic Aboriginal mission in Adelaide on New Years eve 2001 as they showed me their new haircuts and make up.

We went back inside and we were late for our meal so the men pushed us to the front and made all the men wait until we got the best food.   The Iraqis and Iranians are the same and the food is to die for.

The Sabeans are pacifist to the core and drop dead gorgeous to a man and woman, they truly suffered in Woomera and other places.

I got to know hundreds of those released from Woomera because I helped the lawyers.

I just received a new book in the post.



The Pacific solution demonised asylum seekers and dropped every dehumanising name onto them ''short of bombing them''.

While the High Court has effectively detonated the Malaysia solution, a new book... trace[s] the fuse that ignited the Pacific solution. Overboard was written by Walkley-winning journalist Ghassan Nakhoul, the first Australian to have interviewed people smugglers. It reveals that it was a convicted ring leader of people smugglers who ironically vowed that if we ''turn back a boat, just once, no one will be coming''.

Overboard reveals that the then attorney-general Phillip Ruddock twice affirmed that ''the strongest message that has ever been given was the message to turn around boats''. In an interview on SBS radio in July 2001, one of the most notorious - and now prosecuted - people smugglers, Keis Asfoor, had this to say: ''If Australia closes the door and ... a ship is turned back, I will stop this thing'.

Five weeks later, the government became ''accomplices in the conspiracy of alienating rejected humans''. The asylum-seekers who were rescued by the Tampa were turned back with spectacular media theatrics that guaranteed international headlines to ''send a strong message to people smugglers''.

In the light of this contaminated conception, the Gillard Government should distance itself from any offshore ''solution''.

And it is not now and nor was it then people smuggling which is the tragedy of our whole political discourse along with journalists who are terrified fo that simple truth even when we end up jailing children with pedophiles in adult prisons.

Ship not found - link overboard - check port

Marilyn, I cut and pasted the link and it looks like the link sunk - "ship not found" "link overboard" "check port" appeared on my screen - bloody government just don't know where to stop - bastards!!!!

Anyway, iTwo was invited to an Iranian do, about thirty years ago now - yum, and yes the ladies were lovely, not that I really noticed - honest.

It just doesn't make sense you know. On one hand Australians are supposed to be tough, hell we go fight wars and get killed, just for the adventure sometimes, now that takes gonads, HOWEVER, on the other hand we behave like sugar babies over a handful for defenceless refugees, who to the best of my knowledge do us no harm whatsoever.

Hey guys....Allahu Akbar.... now wait for it....... 



i K A H b o o oooo o mmmmmm



There ya go, now that's about as close as 99.99% of Australians have got to terrorism, or ever will (except for financial terrorism) - now that didn't hurt at all.

BTW, how many people have seen their superannuation shrink in recent history?

If so, was it refugees who stole part of your financial future, or the greedy bastards?



Explosives kindly supplied by iHarry Demolitions 11/9 (no proprietary) Limited

NB - principal place of business now located somewhere in Tasmania owing to Sussie's recent débauchément.


And again our worthless media lead the cheer squads

I wonder which part of "it's illegal to push away refugees without determination of claims" the media didn't hear as they prattle and babble about "new solutions".

We don't have a problem that needs a solution.

And to add insult to their injury a NSW jury found that the Indonesian fisherman was not a people smuggler.

What a surprise.

Someone gag Abbott

He is still prattling about making new illegal law to push away refugees to Nauru.

Does he have some dirty under the table deal with them?

Which part of it's not legal doesn't the moron understand?

No more of this bullishit.  I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and so does half the country.


Marilyn: "I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and so does half the country".

In your part of the world that might be true, but the rest  of Oz are doing OK.


but the rest  of Oz are doing OK

Not quite Alan.

I know a lad, the son of an old school friend, who joined the army. He had to prove himself in combat, so he volunteered to go to Afghanistan. Lots of the military lads volunteered, couldn't wait really, so the keenest volunteered for bomb disposal - that way they could get there quicker.

The lad's uncle (also a school mate) took him aside and had a chat - apparently the lad didn't have a clue what is was all about - he just wanted to be a real soldier.

Anyway the lad got the gig (with bomb disposal) and did his tour of duty (on his first day out his partner got wounded by an IED), but all is not well. You see, his best mate was one of those who bought it (you saw him on the news), and apparently the loss really fucked his head, and the heads of other young soldiers.

He's home now and getting out of the army at years end, he has PTSD and is doing it tough. He won't get help because he fears it will be a black mark on his record (he says many others feel the same), because he wants to be a cop when he gets out (think about it).

His uncle said to me he would have been quite happy in the military, except for the killing stuff.

It would be good to have one without the other, but as long as we have politicians we are are gunna have wars - and the poor little buggers who are sent to fight those wars haven't got a fucking clue.

That was the last TAMPA law done

In case anyone is wondering that was the last piece of TAMPA law struck out today which means Nauru was illegal all along.

Now for the illegal people smuggling laws

Now that the High Court has comprehensively booted Gillard in the arse maybe the media will learn the fucking law and stop assuming that we are a dictatorship where the minister can do what he wants and break any law he likes.

Now for the absurd people smuggling laws which were also effectively declared invalid by today's ruling which stated that under our law people have the absolute right to have their claims assessed here without being expelled and that they have the right to come here.

As they have had that right to 57 years it is time the morons in parliament got it.

Life in the Asylum: Nurse Ratched Returns

On a slightly different note, just listening to a report on the ABC on the problems asylum seekers in WA. These are largely Sri Lankans, some have been in detention for nearly fifteen months and are literally "up the wall". The problem seems to be in the way these places are run, as to the specific problem; they are privatised and run by the big SERCO organisation, yet there are apparently problems relating to under/unqualified staff and inadequate numbers of staff. The staff are apparently having to double as counsellors, which they're not qualified to be.

The whole question of these places and how they're run, was the sort of problem that had people swing to Labor in 2007 - privatisation of what ought to be a government responsibility occurred under Howard, but Labor was going to fix it up.

Yet we still have this system whereby these people, asylum seekers, are locked in for indeterminate lengths of time in secretive institutions run by secretive multinational organisations who are yet, too stingy, to hire qualified social workers in adequate numbers to support these people while they're being assessed, when the stay becomes protracted.

We were told detention times would radically drop under new conditions, no doubt this was behind the inadequate staffing, the stays would be not so long as to cause profound psychological damage, left untreated. But its turned out differently, yet no accommodation seems to have been made in the budgeting of either government or big corporations.

Well into the twenty-first century, we have arrived at a perfect replica of something that wouldn't look out of place in the nineteenth: wtf?

Why do humanitarian needs take such a back seat to ideological economic rationalism and authoritarianism?

If there is to be a certain amount of processing involved, can it at least be done under conditions we would expect for "our own", if they were in this sort of dire situation?


A commercial organization exists for no reason but to maximize profit. It is doing the right thing according to commercial criteria to employ the least competent people it can provided the consequence is not to reduce profit. It is doing the right thing if it provides the cheapest, most crowded, most restrictive accommodation it can possibly provide, because that tends to maximize profit, and maximize the benefit to its shareholders.

It would be improper for the company to do anything else.

The key issue in all this is whether any SERCO conduct has breached its contract with the government. If it has, the company may have jeopardized its maximization of profit, although if it is the result of reasonable risk taking in the quest of that profit the shareholders may be satisfied.

The key issue, the only issue, is whether there has been a breach of contract.

Government officials are typically incompetent to negotiate such contracts, so it is very likely that no breach has occurred.

The problem not that the organization is too stingy. It's its job to be stingy. If it were not stingy it would be failing its shareholders.

The problem is that the government has not sued SERCO for breaching its contract in providing this quality of service, has not recovered damages massive enough to wipe out its profit, and there is not a court order cancelling the contract for breach but requiring SERCO to operate the centre in compliance with the terms of the contact until a contract has been finalised with the commercial entity that is to replace them.

And the cause of that problem was the government's incompetence in negotiating the contract and their subsequent incompetence in managing the contract. So, despite the horrible situation you describe, there will have been no actionable breach.

An almost invariable problem is that the government is cut-throat in the pricing it is determined to negotiate. Almost certainly SERCO will feel dudded by the price that it agreed to.

Governments are high and mighty in this area, think they have the prerogative of buying more cheaply than any non-government entity could because of their supposed purchasing power. There is a point there, but they overdo it. You get what you pay for and SERCO will necessarily be providing a low quality service which they consider fair value for money.

The problem is that that outsourcing doesn't work. It is a delusion, a fantasy, an impractical concept. There is no way of making it work. In this context it is vicious of its essence. Certainly, a non-outsourced camp operated by public servants would be better operated than the SERCO camp, but the fault does not lie with SERCO.

The responsibility for the suffering of the inmates lies wholly with the government. Wholly.

I am not a lawyer.

A hero speaks in horror

And we have learnt nothing.




 ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: The Malaysian government has published changes to its immigration act, which will allow 800 asylum seekers to be sent there by the Australian Government.

Any asylum seekers sent to Malaysia as part of the swap deal will be granted certain agreed protections for two years, until August 2013.

But under the changes those protections will be lost once the person is registered as a refugee by the United Nations, a process which can be completed in months.

The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has previously stated that the right of lawful stay in Malaysia is one of five safeguards necessary to protect the rights of asylum seekers

Another moronic report from Matt Brown

There are several things not mentioned in the refugee convention but in Australia they are normal language even though they have no basis in fact.

Matt Brown reports 'NOTORIOUS PEOPLE SMUGGLER ARRESTED IN INDONESIA" but no-one has a clue who he is, if the story is true, what or who he has supposedly smuggled (bearing in mind no-one is being smuggled into Australia) and then interviews the Australian bought and paid for Indonesian "anti-people smuggling task force head" who claims that the Malaysia solution won't stop smugglers coming to Australia.

And it is all offered up as news without a skerrick of actual thought or analysis.

It seems to make not a jot of difference to the babbling clowns that they are talking utter bullshit, they just keep serving it up as fact.

The refugee convention is a legally binding humanitarian treaty with legal force in the migration act, it is not about deterrence or border security or any of the pap we are fed on a daily basis so one can only assume that our media are all lazy, racist morons.

This is the dirt we are trying to buy and sell refugees into and according to ALP cheat notes it is because it is "financially prudent", which means nothing except we have wasted so much on breaking our own laws we will just break a few more.


I feel like screaming at the monkeys

Bowen and Gillard want to take us back to the 19th century of human trading and all our media can do is prattle about the politics of it - never mind the fact that it could be deadly for those Gillard thinks she can trade.

The government solicitor should be fired - fancy saying we owe protection to those who need it and then saying we can push back without finding out if they need that protection when DIAC records show they do.

I scream, you scream we all scream for icecream

Marilyn, I feel like screaming when I hear that another Australian soldier has been killed or injured in Afghanistan, whilst at the same time Afghan refugees are on a hunger strike or burning buildings down and costing the taxpayers $milions.

We should send these brave Afghans back so they can help the Aussie troops get rid of the Taliban.

Choices and consequences

We chose to send soldiers to murder Afghans, if they get killed in the process well that is their own fault.

As for Afghan refugees burning things, you are quite mistaken, it is Iranians and Kurds.

And why the most persecuted people in Afghanistan should stay and fight is beyond me when the so called government people kill them just as often as the taliban do.

We have helped to create the refugees by having our soldiers in a stupid 'war' that was lost almost before it started.

It is certainly not the fault of the refugees here though is it that an Australian soldier got killed in Afghanistan but here is the thing - if we send soldiers to invade other people's countries they are allowed to be shot at.


Marilyn: It is certainly not the fault of the refugees here though is it that an Australian soldier got killed in Afghanistan but here is the thing - if we send soldiers to invade other people's countries they are allowed to be shot at.

So by your logic, if the Afghans,Iranians and Kurds invading Australia in leaky boats happen to drown it's their own fault, you should be down at the seashore waving your arms and telling them to turn round and go back.

Invasions and roses

The refugees are not invading us with bombs and bullets. They are arriving under Australian law to ask for help.

However, if they drown in an accident like they did last year they are not to blame, no-one is.

Accidents happen.

But invading other countries and expecting the people to welcome us with roses instead of bullets is a delusion the west like to think is real.

Next week

Next Wednesday our High Court either allows Bowen to be a human trafficker sanctioned by nothing more than his word or it disallows it.

I hope it will be the latter because the former is depraved beyond belief.

And still the media monkeys prattle

Indonesia ratified this protocol but not the refugee protocol but it would be illegal for Indonesia to use this protocol to jail anyone who gives refugees a ride.

IV. Final provisions

Article 19

Saving clause

1. Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of nonrefoulement as contained therein.

2. The measures set forth in this Protocol shall be interpreted and applied in a way that is not discriminatory to persons on the ground that they are the object of conduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol. The interpretation and application of those measures shall be consistent with internationally recognized principles of non-discrimination.

UNHCR Summary Position on the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime

1. UNHCR has followed with interest the recent adoption of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, including the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air ("Protocol against Smuggling") and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ("Protocol against Trafficking"). The Office is pleased to be present at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Palermo, Sicily, from 12 to 15 December 2000.

2. UNHCR shares the concerns raised by many States that criminal and organized smuggling of migrants, on a large scale, may lead to the misuse of national asylum or immigration procedures. However, given an increasing number of obstacles to access safety, asylum-seekers are often compelled to resort to smugglers. UNHCR is also aware of cases of trafficked persons, particularly women and children, who may, under exceptional circumstances, be in need of international protection. The Office therefore participated in the preparatory work of the Ad Hoc Committee in Vienna, supporting its efforts to elaborate international instruments which would enable governments to combat smuggling and trafficking of persons, whilst upholding their international protection responsibilities towards refugees.

3. The Protocol against Smuggling, for instance, contains a number of provisions which may impact on smuggled asylum-seekers. The authorization to intercept vessels on the high seas, the obligation to strengthen border controls and to adopt sanctions for commercial carriers, or the commitment to accept the return of smuggled migrants may indeed affect those who seek international protection. A number of comparable provisions of the Protocol against Trafficking may have a similar effect.

4. During the sessions of the Ad-Hoc Committee, UNHCR therefore emphasized the need to reconcile measures to combat the smuggling of migrants and the trafficking of persons with existing obligations under international refugee law. The Office welcomes the adoption of a saving clause in both Protocols, designed to safeguard the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, in particular in relation to the principle of non-refoulement.

5. In addition, UNHCR appreciates the adoption of provisions for the protection of smuggled migrants, such as the obligation of States Parties to take appropriate measures to afford smuggled migrants protection against violence and to take into account the special needs of women and children. The Protocol against Smuggling is also clear in that it does not aim at punishing persons for the mere fact of having been smuggled or at penalizing organizations which assist such persons for purely humanitarian reasons. Indonesian fishermen do not deserve to be charged or jailed.

6. In conclusion, UNHCR hopes that States Parties will respect the international legal framework set out by both Protocols through the adoption of similar safeguards in all bilateral or regional agreements or operational arrangements implementing or enhancing the provisions of these Protocols.

That babbling moron Bowen

Now we have another expensive dirty deal with New Guinea to open Manus Island even though the High Court has yet to determine the legality of such dirty deals.

It's all about "stopping people smuggling" but not one person has ever been smuggled to Manus island so that is pretty worthless and only punishes and illegally jails the refugees.


Smugglers are a pathway for people like us who wanted to escape the country," he says. "According to the law, what the smugglers are doing, it's illegal, we all understand. But if you look at it from the other side, what they have done for us is a good thing. They didn't come to my house or knock at my door asking for money, saying 'I'm going to take you to this place'."

The babbling Greens

Senator Hanson-Young accused the government of trying to push the plight of boat people "out of sight, out of mind".

She said: ”The Greens are very concerned that the government is steamrolling ahead with the Manus Island proposal and they seem to have learnt nothing from the mistakes of the past."

Can I suggest to the "Spokesperson for everything" that she and her fellow Greens pull the plug on the Gillard mob and thus cause a Federal Election.

This will achieve two things it will get rid of the most incompetant government we have ever had, and at the same time decimate The Greens.

It will also give all those people who voted independant a chance to make amends.

True happiness

Dear, dear Alan, would you be happier in a one party state? Because, from your comments, that seems to be what you'd really really like.

After all, democracy is a real shit, unless you prefer the alternative.

The ALP and the other mob

Apart from refugee policy I like the platform of the ALP and the other mob don't have one at all.

Article 32 of the refugee convention that we helped to write says "no state actor will expel any refugee in their territory to any other territory".

Enough already, Bowen is acting like a fascist coward.

Finally the media question the smuggler lies


Heather Ewart interviewed Al Jenabi last night on 7.30. The poor man was literally rendered to Australia under an illegal deal with Thailand and is still in virtual prison for life.

And for what?  He saved his family.

And still Bowen prattles and no-one questions

Why is it that our media are so worthless and brainwashed they still prattle about unknown and non-existent people smugglers sending people here? The refugees are allowed to come here.

Contrast our whiney morons here with the situation of hell we saw on Foreign Correspondent last night.

40,000 refugees walked into Kenya last month alone. We have had 33,000 "boat" people in almost 40 years yet still they prattle and babble.

Bowen claims he has majority cabinet support for human trading. I suppose he might because the racist cowards in the ALP are deathly silent in the face of the hellish notion that they have the right to do this with the delusion that "people smugglers" will give a flying fuck if we torture or even kill refugees.

After all they have their money and nothing to lose.

time for change

Funny, just here from a thread at Andrew Bartlett's site on this and find that Marilyn has an update on the current situation. Much more detailed, as you'd expect, than anything I could write.

After a decade of trialling, the current system works for no one: not us, not the asylum seekers, just a few politicians and media press types trying to sell themselves, on fear and loathing; "spooking the kiddies".

To think that a nation that imagines itself to be the cutting edge of civilisation can't do better than the current mess is actually a very bit pathetic.

Politicians Be Damned, It Is Us

Marilyn, we can rail against our politicians all we like. The problem is us.

The vast majority of Mum & Dad Australia have no inclination to march or protest. Relatively-speaking we are fat and comfortable and have no expectations beyond our immediate concerns.

This leaves asylum seekers, climate change and any number of significant moral issues just nowhere. The prevailing sentiment down at the pub is "f...'em".

Far from "spooking the kiddies", as Paul has commented, the politicians are reflecting what we really think. There are no votes to be gained on this issue. Of course, a politician with aspirations to statesmanship could make an absolute killing in the vacuum left by the pygmies (apologies to our small African friends) from both major parties. Do we have one? Nope!

I once had hopes for Nicola Roxon and then she just caved in on Ruddock's amendment to the Marriage Act. Just another pygmy!

 Keep up the good fight.

Morally Bankrupt

Roger, you're right to point out Australia's lack of concern when it comes to moral issues such as asylum seekers or climate change. The rioting in the United Kingdom is another pointer to the moral bankruptcy modern societies are facing. 

Concern for other than ourselves is very limited.

"I'm OK, bugger you Jack" is our motto.

Once morals would be preached from pulpits, now the only guidance we get comes from the likes of shock jocks. 

The majority of us do not attend church regularly but we have not yet come up with a replacement for the pulpit. 

Populate And Perish

John, I'm painting with a broad brush here and have no suggestions that would be of any help in wider society.

At the very crux of the world's major problems is something very simple to understand. There are too many of us. However, no one is volunteering to go to the Soylent Green factory for reprocessing.

The numbers don't lie. 7 billion of us eat, shit and create rubbish every day. We consume everything within sight and reach and yet the number going hungry everyday exceeds 2 billion. Nothing effective is being done to alleviate that. In fact the only inevitable consequence is more copulation and more population. While being part of the earth's biomass we are constrained to eating a greater part of that biomass everyday. A partial solution is to create more of what is green, the Sun being our true Lord in that quest (All Hail the Sun, why is there no book?). Ignorance'R'Us, we destroy what is green without understanding that we are destroying ourselves.

Dispassionately, I could say that a short term solution would be for the 2 billion to perish quickly but they would be replaced immediately. As a person who volunteers my time to some unfashionable causes I am stuck in this strange nexus where I make a difference to a handful of lives while so many who I will never know die in appalling circumstances.

This global state of affairs cannot continue and will not continue. Nature, that closed system which is our home environment, won't allow it. There will be an "Act of God", not all that far away, which will reposition the preeminence of the human species.

We are far too consumed with our own hubris to see what a mess we are living in.

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 5 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 2 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago