BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Last edited by Cybargs (2013-07-26 06:38:55)

It’s easy to see why, at a time of heightened political pressure, the memory the 2005 Cronulla riots might be at the forefront of politicians’ minds. Back then, 5,000 people gathered in a media-fuelled campaign to stop immigrants from supposedly carrying out violent crime against locals. What began peacefully soon resulted in the mob attack of an unsuspecting man of Arab appearance outside a hotel, followed by several similar violent incidents over the course of three days and nights. The Lebanese community took the hardest knock, with several young men being set upon. What had been the inevitable result of mounting tension between white youths and Middle Eastern immigrants became a momentous event in Australian history that alerted the world to the country’s problem with xenophobia and the bias against immigrants perpetuated by its media.

But those events are by no means reflective of the majority, as shown through several demonstrations held this year to force the government into taking a softer line on immigration. As Graeme McGregor says: “The vast majority of Australians are compassionate people who are willing to give asylum seekers a 'fair go' once they hear their personal stories and are aware of the true facts on the issue. Unfortunately, for years politicians have been using asylum seekers for political point-scoring and incorrectly labelling people who arrive by boat as 'illegal', when it is perfectly legal to seek asylum from persecution.”

Propaganda is being put before humanitarian law and this can only hinder Australia’s progress to achieving harmony and true multiculturalism. The events of last Friday hold devastating repercussions for the thousands of people risking their lives to escape oppressive regimes and forge a better life for themselves in a developed country. They also have the potential to destroy the lives of people living in Papua New Guinea, who haven’t the means or the infrastructure to fare the storm that's heading their way.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 09:12:23)

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-27 05:26:52)

HEARTLESS bastards. That's the verdict delivered by many on the progressive side of politics against the government for arranging to resettle asylum-seekers arriving by boat in Papua New Guinea.
It's a cynical, cruel pre-election ploy, the progressive commentary continues, by a government feigning concern about people drowning at sea.

That good, decent people oppose a policy of no resettlement in Australia of asylum-seekers arriving by boat is neither surprising nor incomprehensible.

But when the presentation of facts is met with indignation and an unwillingness to move beyond abuse to sensible discussion, the question arises as to whether critics are truly interested in the realities that governments and the world confront. Criticism is easy. Government policy for countries grappling with the vexed problem of asylum-seekers right around the globe is not.

At the risk of confronting critics' sensibilities, let's get some facts on the table. In the past few years, more than 1000 asylum-seekers have drowned on boat journeys to Australia, many of them little children who had no say in the decision to get on a boat.

More died this week, when a boat with more than 200 asylum-seeker passengers capsized off Java. Again, children were among the dead.

Next fact is that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates there are more than 110,000 refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia and Indonesia wanting to come to Australia and other advanced countries. This isn't a fixed total. More arrive by air every day.

Worldwide, there are more than 42 million displaced people, at least 15 million of whom are refugees.

The Australian government has increased its annual humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 20,000 people. The intake comprises offshore arrivals (from refugee camps) and onshore arrivals (by boat). Any refugee arriving by boat displaces a refugee from a camp.

Unless arrivals by boat - now at 3000 a month - are halted, Australia will not be able to take any refugees from camps - none.

Progressive critics argue there are no queues in refugee camps. Queues or no queues, millions of people live in extremely tough conditions in refugee camps.

Too poor to afford an air fare to Malaysia or Indonesia and to pay people-smugglers for a boat to Australia, why are these refugees in camps less deserving of our compassion than asylum-seekers arriving by boat? A case of out of sight, out of mind, it seems.

Outraged at this question, progressive critics demand that onshore arrivals of asylum-seekers be decoupled from the offshore intake. That, of course, would remove any limits on boat arrivals.

Apart from the reality that the Australian people will not accept unlimited unauthorised boat arrivals, any such decoupling would lead to more deaths at sea. It doesn't solve the problem of asylum-seekers drowning, it exacerbates it.

Faster processing of asylum-seeker claims in Indonesia is suggested as a way of fixing the problem. This is easier said than done but, again, it assumes the number of asylum-seekers in Malaysia and Indonesia is more or less fixed. It is not.

Iranian arrivals have been accelerating. They have not been trekking overland for months. They have been able to obtain visas to enter Indonesia upon arrival at airports.

In any event, there is a particular advantage to arriving in Australian territory by boat. When the willingness of courts to overturn initial determinations of refugee status is taken into account, asylum-seekers arriving here by boat have a 90 per cent chance of being assessed as genuine refugees.

The goal of the arrangement with PNG is not to send lots of asylum-seekers there but to stop the deaths at sea. It is the same goal as the Malaysia arrangement opposed by a combination of the Coalition and the Greens as being too harsh. There's nothing compassionate about letting asylum-seekers drown at sea.

Finally, progressive critics ask why the government doesn't live up to the wonderful record of Malcolm Fraser's government, which resettled tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees.

During the entire period of the Fraser government, only 2000 Vietnamese asylum-seekers arrived in Australia by boat. The rest were processed and held in detention centres in Southeast Asia - including Malaysia.

Yet those same progressives are opposed to offshore processing, especially in countries that are not signatories to the Refugee Convention - including Malaysia.

It's time for a rational discussion of asylum-seekers based on facts, not myths. That's unlikely to occur in the heat of an election campaign but must happen thereafter, regardless of which party wins. Meanwhile, if trying to stop asylum-seekers drowning at sea makes me a heartless bastard, I can live with that.