BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

We're not talking about an unmanageable number here, there are only about 2,500 asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru and only 200 of them are kids. Add the ones on Christmas Island and you have 450. The only reason they are where they are is political, so the LNP can still use its "you will never come to Australia" line as a supposed linchpin in its "Stop The Boats" policy along with keeping the Australian public in the dark about what they're actually doing. The ALP goes along with it so when they get accused of being shit at refugee policy - as they were when they were in - they can claim they came up with it all in the first place.

Late last year Scott Morrison released all the kids in mainland detention to get his TPVs reintroduced, it wasn't a hard thing to do. He didn't extend that to offshore detention centres simply because that's where he's decided to draw the line. Australia still has the same duty of care to those people, it's just that it doesn't feel like giving it. Instead they'll come up with some convoluted scheme to send them to Cambodia of all fucking places. That's what I find disgraceful, having the ability to live up to your obligations but then flagrantly deciding to disregard it because it's not politically convenient. The fact that instead they're going with something that's more complicated and expensive with a worse outcome for all involved is just the idiocy on top.

As for refugees being perceived as causing trouble - it's a problem, yeah. The media's always going to go for that angle. I mean these two idiots who got arrested this week, they may have had the intention to do harm but they were hardly terrorist masterminds. "Oh I'll just dress up like an ISIS militant and go buy a machete, no-one will suspect a thing". Dumb. There are drunk people on a Friday night who are more capable of causing harm than that sort of person. Man Monis meanwhile was mentally ill, he certainly wasn't a terrorist sleeper cell let into the country under the Howard Government. But they were refugees! Arabic refugees! So we all get scared and xenophobic and develop the belief that any brown person who comes into the country could be a terrorist. Yet when some nutter stages an armed stand-off with police in Launceston no-one cares because it's just a regular Australian nutter, not a refugee nutter. Also because it's Launceston.

Ex-penal colonists making prison islands for immigrating refugees? Can one safely call that irony?

Adams_BJ wrote:

I don't get the big fuss on detention for refugees.

You can't just let them in, you don't know who they are.

You can't just put them all into society, they might disappear, we don't know who they are.

So what else are you gonna do other than keep them at a facility while you process them? So what if they have kids, its not a free pass. If they are coming from wartorn countries like you say, don't you think the fact that they aren't getting bombed or shot at or kidnapped or on a leaky boat 6 inches from the water that could drown them any night is an improvement?

We were one of the signatories to the Refugee Convention of 1951, the one that was put in place post-WWII after the holocaust, to allow people to cross borders to flee persecution and death.

There is a process of screening for refugee status. Also, our intake of refugees worldwide is around 0.5% p/a, and yet it's one of our most politicised issues.

Cos I do. If this country was like syria and I was desperate enough to get on an old boat and sneak into a country as a refugee I'd be over the moon to be locked up in a facility that I have water and food and a roof over my head and medical supplies. I don't care if its cold porridge 3 times a day and my mattress is so thin I can feel the ground. I'm not getting shot at or beheaded.

People are being abused, intimidated and living in purposefully terrible conditions. Saying that "it's better than what they had" is a pretty shit argument to be honest. It's like telling a child who's being abused at home "it could be worse, you could be on the street, so be grateful".

Sorry if I expect a better standard from a first world country that prefers to spend twenty times what it would cost to simply screen for genuine refugees and then let them into the country to become productive members of society.

Jaekus wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I don't get the big fuss on detention for refugees.

You can't just let them in, you don't know who they are.

You can't just put them all into society, they might disappear, we don't know who they are.

So what else are you gonna do other than keep them at a facility while you process them? So what if they have kids, its not a free pass. If they are coming from wartorn countries like you say, don't you think the fact that they aren't getting bombed or shot at or kidnapped or on a leaky boat 6 inches from the water that could drown them any night is an improvement?

We were one of the signatories to the Refugee Convention of 1951, the one that was put in place post-WWII after the holocaust, to allow people to cross borders to flee persecution and death.

There is a process of screening for refugee status. Also, our intake of refugees worldwide is around 0.5% p/a, and yet it's one of our most politicised issues.

Yes, but these people have come halfway across the world, they have skipped several countries on the way. I believe a legitimate refugee would stop at the first safe country they can, Australia means a better life for sure but I don't believe they get to be that picky. They go from being refugees to illegal immigrants.

It's one of our most politicised issues because we live in such an amazingly fortunate country that we have nothing to complain about apart from if Mr. Abbott, in an entire day of question time said an inappropriate word and then we focus on it for 3 days. We have nothing to talk about. Oh no our interest rates are low and our standard of living is on top of the world and it's sunny 300 days a year, lets find something to complain about.

Jaekus wrote:

There is a process of screening their status, and that is where they stay while it happens. Put them in the community and they may disappear.

Cos I do. If this country was like syria and I was desperate enough to get on an old boat and sneak into a country as a refugee I'd be over the moon to be locked up in a facility that I have water and food and a roof over my head and medical supplies. I don't care if its cold porridge 3 times a day and my mattress is so thin I can feel the ground. I'm not getting shot at or beheaded.

People are being abused, intimidated and living in purposefully terrible conditions. Saying that "it's better than what they had" is a pretty shit argument to be honest. It's like telling a child who's being abused at home "it could be worse, you could be on the street, so be grateful".

Sorry if I expect a better standard from a first world country that prefers to spend twenty times what it would cost to simply screen for genuine refugees and then let them into the country to become productive members of society.

No, its not a shit argument because you are sensationalising it. They don't live in shit conditions where they are abused and intimidated, that is where they come from. They live in a detention centre while they get screened. Not a 5 star hotel. A detention centre. Clean water, food, accomodation, bedding, medical facilities, and no go damn war. I'm sure its not pleasant, but the thing you seem to forget while staying safe and warm with a full belly, delicious wine and a comfy bed is just how bad some of these countries are that they have come from. And if they are truly fearing their lives to the point that the have to become refugees, where they are is a such a different world that its a blessing. They have a safe place to stay until they get through the screening process and either get in, or get sent back.

It's not pleasant, but then again it doesn't have to be. We are to provide them their necessities. I'd like to see good education in there.

They don't live in shit conditions? It's been all over the news for a long time, especially recently.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ … 37xwd.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ … 3b10a.html

Good education? That's a fairytale. Proper sanitation isn't even happening, despite the money spent per refugee.

It's a bit different Ty because once people get wind that their kids get better treatment than the rest and are more likely to be processed, you open the flood gates.

Idk not an expert in this area because I honestly think it's an overblown political issue that could been dealt better without the media spotlight and the gov trying to win bogan votes.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The living conditions, and educational conditions for the kids, in the detention centres should be better, that's about the only step I'd suggest taking.

Abbott is fucked. He had a 40% vote against him without a single contender.

Today one of my colleagues told me his personal customer (who is a federal LNP senator in QLD) said "this fucking PM is going down soon". There's a massive campaign against Abbott within his own government.

I'd rather Abbott than Shortne. He has no substance. The only thing he is good at is calling out Libs. No suggestions on how he'd do it better.

He might put more women in the cabinet though!

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'd rather Abbott than Shortne. He has no substance. The only thing he is good at is calling out Libs. No suggestions on how he'd do it better.

He might put more women in the cabinet though!

This is exactly what Abbott is and was all about when in opposition. The only difference being the more women thing.

What terrorist attack? Do you mean the Sydney siege?

Pretty loose definition of "terrorist".

I don't think there's a big appetite for a great deal of defence spending in Australia. Discussion on defence spending is more geared towards economics than actual security i.e. whether Australia going to be producing something or whether it is going to be purchased from overseas. I'd say people are ambivalent about the F35s. They're seen by the public as an expensive potential lemon but accepted to a certain degree as part of the process of making sure Australia's defence capabilities are kept up to date. With things like submarines and probably the assault ships I think it's only a matter of where they are produced that most people care about. In both cases though it's spending to retain current capabilities rather than ramping things up in response to a perceived increased threat.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The guy put up an ISIS flag.
"] Monis also demanded that a hostage ask all media to broadcast that "this is an attack on Australia by the Islamic State.

You people can't be that politically correct.

No he didn't you mong. He was so shitty at being an "ISIS" terrorist he ASKED the police for an ISIS flag. He was more of a nutbag with A HISTORY of mental health issues. Was he inspired by ISIS? Sure, pretty funny for an Iranian Shia to cobble up to ISIS but in no way was he communicating with ISIS at all.

Ty: It was considered a terrorist attack by the government, well at least in insurance claims and honestly it is an act of terror due to what he actually wants.

mcbeth: I feel pretty good were buying LHDs, and no they're not going to be used to land our F35s since were not getting the B series. Those plans were made a long time ago. Our navy is also getting new AEGIS destroyers so yeah were getting major upgrades to our naval capabilities.

And no, no ones talking about an increased security spending, mostly stupid spy shit like meta-data and stripping people of citizenship it's a bit ridiculous at this point.