On the politics of criminalising the persecuted

11 Apr

Both the ALP and LNP have, since the Howard government adopted Pauline Hanson’s racist rhetoric and made it politically mainstream again, steadily escalated the implementation of cruel and inhuman policies towards asylum seekers who arrive here by boat.

Hanson gave voice to a dark side of  Australian culture. Howard saw the votes in it, and legitimised its claims to entitlement. I don’t know if the voters who support the illegal punishment of those seeking asylum in great enough numbers for both major parties to capitulate to their demands, ever actually think about the human beings in whose mental destruction they are callously colluding. I doubt it.

Our politicians despicably wilful refusal to uphold our responsibilities to those seeking asylum, as we agreed to do when we signed and later ratified the UN Convention, makes a mockery of that Convention and our obligations to honour it. If we had any guts at all, we would withdraw. As it stands, by continuing to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution we issue an open invitation. We proclaim ourselves to the world as a site of sanctuary. When we are most definitely not, as it is defined by the Convention.

There has been no political leader in this country willing or able to contest the obscene politicisation of a global human tragedy. Even a prime minister with a vagina won’t do it, indeed, under her government things have become increasingly worse. Despite vagina, Prime Minister Gillard has fully embraced the discourse of the importunate other, taking every opportunity to reassure Australians that she will not permit “foreigners” to take our jobs. Despite vagina and anti misogynist rhetoric, Ms Gillard has presided over the vile and ongoing detention of women and children fleeing persecution.

Is it possible to be a feminist  today in Australia and lock up women and children fleeing persecution? There’s a question for Tony Jones and his all-girl Qanda. There’s a question for “All About Women.”

Every day some public figure in parliament or the media, refers to”illegals” and variations thereof, in their deliberate positioning of boat arrivals as criminals who must be dealt with far more severely than any other criminal. Even murderers know how long they are to be incarcerated. Boat arrivals do not.

Billions of tax payer dollars have been channelled towards these indefinite incarcerations, despite the irrefutable fact that the majority of boat arrivals are found to be refugees, and entitled to stay in this country. Those who are not are quite rightly sent back to where they came from. Unfortunately, some are wrongly sent back to where they came from, and when they arrive they are subjected to torture and death.

As long as there are votes in criminalising and dehumanising asylum seekers who arrive by boat, politicians will continue with these practices. This is one example of the evils of democracy. When the majority demand the torment of others in order that they may persuade themselves they are safe from threat, then the majority will have its way.

There is something fundamentally flawed, not to mention abhorrent, in the belief that the worse we treat those who arrive by boat, the more likely we are to discourage people from attempting the journey. We do not have the right to treat badly those who are only responding to our open invitation, and yet we continue to claim that right and to act on it.

I don’t know where this will end. Asylum seekers are not going away. Boats aren’t going to stop. I don’t know how much more cruelly we can treat boat arrivals, in the vain hope that desperate people will lose their desperation and stay where they are. The rich world must find decent ways to deal with the increasing encroachment of the persecuted on its privilege. We cannot continue to incarcerate them. We cannot continue to drive them out of their minds. We cannot continue to waste the resourcefulness and courage boat arrivals offer our society. We cannot continue to pour billions of dollars into brutalising women and children. We cannot continue capitulating to the ignorant fears of Australians who can’t be bothered thinking this through, and who just want someone to make it all go way and promise them they’ll be forever safe from difference.

We can’t, and we must not.

262 Responses to “On the politics of criminalising the persecuted”

  1. doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 8:28 am #

    Don’t fall for the rhetoric. What the Labor government actually does is to take in all genuine refugees.

    All of them. They don’t want to publish it, but they do.

    The conservative narrative which has dominated politics for 30 years or more insists that the rhetoric used must be tough on “illegal immigrants” as they see the asylum seekers.

    No government in the western world (correct me if I’m wrong) has open borders and a “come one, come all” policy. And they all talk tough.

    But why the fuck do you think the Opposition keeps screaming about border protection when that is an absolute red herring non-issue?

    Why? Because it is more acceptable than their true agenda.

    Why? Because their policies if ever implemented would get you and the soggy left screaming!

    Not just whinging sulkily in the corner, but screaming!


    • Jennifer Wilson April 11, 2013 at 8:31 am #

      What the Labor government does is continue to practice cruelty and discrimination in its dealings with boat arrivals. This is not justified by the numbers of “legitimate” refugees we accept.


      • Di Pearton April 11, 2013 at 9:09 am #

        What the LNP and ALP are doing is dangerous. They are stirring up hatred in communities where people are already stretched.

        We expect nothing more from LNP, but ALP should be showing leadership, by welcoming refugees with compassion and grace, because refugees will continue to come.

        Accept them with grace and benefit from the enrichment that refugees from earlier history have contributed to Australian society. Or, accept them kicking and screaming, and making society an ugly cesspool of resentment?

        Areas where refugees finally settle need to be better resourced so that resentment doesn’t develop, and the ALP needs to look at Greens policy for refugee detention.

        Schools especially, in these disadvantaged areas need, not just to be adequately funded, but extraordinarily funded.


      • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 9:51 am #

        I’d take a position half way between Jennifer’s and Doug’s positions, two poles. Both ignore a number of realities; Jennifer’s involving cultural and social realities that background that back ground our current Murdochised politics.
        Jennifer, do you think a bit of foot-tapping and scolding at the lumpen proletariat is really going to do the trick as to zeitgeist- it just makes you look yet another self-presenting elitist; a peering down the nose sanctimonious and self-righteous Pollyanna.
        Doug, don’t lipstick the pig.
        Labor and Tory alike are inhumane, and the policy is based as on expediency spiced by a perverse delight at the subceptional smashing of absolutist values (Kantian Imperative, Habeas Corpus etc ) that presages nihilist tooth and claw fascism. The people dying are just that, not wax works dummies.
        However I’d agree with you that “open-slather”, particularly unplanned, is not the solution, it is sentimentalist fantasy.
        Better if the real culprits rather than oiks like you and me were abused at.
        Or better still, these were convinced to pack in wars that create refugee trails and spend the money filched from poor countries on their development rather than the maiming of their people.


        • Jennifer Wilson April 11, 2013 at 10:39 am #

          No I don’t think anything I say will make any difference at all but today I had to say it.

          My position is that I am done with maintaining a silence on the prejudice and ignorance of many voters just because I might sound elitist. I’m sure they have many good qualities, but their racism, xenophobia and self-interested fear of asylum seekers shits me to tears & is leading us down a very slippery slope. If this makes me elitist, then so be it. At least I’m not an elite feminist. LOL.


          • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

            Well, as long as you are prepared to cop what you dob others in for.
            Why do you never mention the responsibilities of the rich and powerful when you are trying to sell the rest into picking up the tab for them?
            As to racism, I think this used as an emotive blackmailing term against the cautious as much if not more than against actual racists.


            • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

              Really Paul? What if 66 white tourists had washed up in Geraldton this week?

              Would we have Leigh Sales screaming BORDER BREACH? Would we have police in masks and guns greeting them or the red cross?

              Would we be talking about which prison to put them in or would we be booking them hotels?

              It’s fucking racism.


        • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:39 pm #

          But all nations who have ratified the refugee convention have promised to keep borders open ergo there is legally open slather.

          Who the fuck are Australian’s who came here under open slather rules to decide others can’t.

          There is no fucking middle ground here. The law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum without being punished for doing so.

          What is ambiguous about that?


          • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

            Marilyn, Marilyn…with the potty mouth.


            • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

              WEll don’t fucking crap Paul, you know very well I am right.


              • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

                Well, you say so.
                It must be true.


          • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

            There’s nothing wrong with what you’re saying but too few countries have ratified the refugee convention and even then few are prepared to implement it with quite your enthusiasm for the ideal. And even when they do borders are only open for the purposes of receiving and assessing claims not necessarily as a guarantee of permanent resettlement in the country of first choice.

            Now I’m not going to defend people who would use that as if to say that two wrongs make a right, but at some point it does become a practical problem that first world nations are constantly petitioned for asylum whereas less developed ones nearer the departure points for many displaced people aren’t. We’re finding a situation in many places where if a dominant majority want to commit cultural genocide on a neighbouring group of people we’re almost abetting their cause by supporting a kind of diaspora to far flung quarters of the globe. As the chances that they’ll ever return diminish so do those that their cultures will be retained.

            All of which is just to say that if we move past the racism and bigotry to properly ask questions about what our humanitarian responsibility ought to be then, protection being a given, permanent resettlement in Australia may not be.


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

              Name one single country who has quarantined its sovereignty to avoid saving refugees.


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

                If you want to make the well known point about excising Islands from our migration zone, then I’m going to thoroughly agree with you. I think it’s an odd weasley way to pursue the dog whistler’s race to the bottom. But on the other hand it doesn’t change the fact that we do receive and process a number of refugees such that I think, while we could take more, we’re possibly also in a position to ask more of others.

                Not that it was the point I wanted to make. I was just asking whether the humanitarian mission is compatible with the way we’re go about it, would work if we went about it as we might ideally be expected to, or desperately needs to switch its focus simply because in practical terms it’s never going to live up to a set of expectations that could even vaguely be called coping.


                • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

                  Just one country.


                  • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

                    Riddles Hypo, Really? Is that transparent attempt at a leading question the best you can do to try and entrap others?

                    It’s your rhetorical question you answer it. I want to hear whether you’ve actually go a point or not.


                    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

                      The only riddle is why you and the rest of the posse keep banging on about the lesser of two evils.
                      And why you see a ‘possible’ threat as a greater risk than the existing consequences of the policies now enacted.
                      It’s like you are saying being dead under Labor beats the shit out of living under Liberals.
                      That’s how desperate your rhetoric sounds.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

                      That doesn’t sound like the name of a country to me you evasive twit!


            • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

              What are you smoking? 148 nations have ratified the frigging convention. That is the vast majority of nations.

              You are talking about the few nations dumb enough to waste hundreds of millions a year on a voluntary resettlement program that has no legal standing.


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

                I’m not asking what the “frigging” legal standing is I’m asking what the reality is and what’s going to work in the best interests of everyone. A great many unforced acts of charity have no legal standing because we don’t always need laws to force us to undertake them.


                • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

                  The convention has legal standing though, not the fucking resettlement program.

                  Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.


                  • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm #

                    it seems we’re at cross purposes, because I did read what you wrote, and you are in my opinion attacking a straw man. Nobody much cares what does or does not have legal standing in these kinds of highly politicised issues. So if resettlement programs help people in addition to what just meeting the basic requirements of what we’ve agreed to then they represent an option. We can I imagine in your ideology still find room to voluntarily do things that are additional to what the law says?


    • zerograv1 April 11, 2013 at 10:06 am #

      If what you say is true “What the Labor government actually does is to take in all genuine refugees. All of them. They don’t want to publish it, but they do.”…………..why do we still have operating centres at Manus, Christmas and Nauru Island?


      • helvityni April 11, 2013 at 10:34 am #

        Labor and Liberal parties are tough on asylum seekers, because that is one thing that can get them in to power; most Australians do not want to take more or any boat people. You must have read the hateful posts on the Drum when asylum seekers were discussed, and this on ABC, not on Bolt’s blog

        You can also be confident that asylum seekers would be WORSE off with Abbott and Morrison.


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:42 am #

          If that is truly your belief, then you must vote accordingly.
          That is what those who have woken up have been saying since day one of Gillards journey into dog whistling.And if faux Labor get given an inch….
          Remember, it is the union maggots who are driving this circus caravan.


          • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

            I already have explained the difference between unionists and party faction hacks.
            To continue in the manner you do despite the explanation infers that you are the maggot, not trade unionists.


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

              I’d bite your silly head off if I didn’t have a peanut allergy.


        • zerograv1 April 11, 2013 at 10:43 am #

          A female friend of mine is on Nauru Island at the moment and got in touch with me on Facebook chat a couple of days ago, She’s is a nurse by training and is there as part of the Federal Government’s immigration team having visited Manus and Christmas prior to landing on Nauru. I asked whether conditions were as reported in our press. Given her position she isn’t at liberty to say too much but made it clear it wasnt something she ever wanted to experience again….appalled would be a good word to sum up her reaction. She isn’t particularly involved in the pro/con debate on this issue (she is fairly apolitical) but does have a big generous heart. Nauru is the worst of the 3 centres in her opinion although Manus isnt much better. The islanders themselves welcome the work and the injection of Australian Government money into the economy which nowdays doesnt have a lot going for it and thankfully she said the Nauruan’s are friendly and accepting of those sent there. They are allowed to partake in various things around the island from time to time, although there really isnt much there anyway apart from swimming and fishing but at least they arent dealing with a hostile island population. Contrast that to Australians attitudes….makes you think


          • helvityni April 11, 2013 at 11:09 am #

            If you have read the comments on The Drum, you’ll know ‘they’ are all economic migrants, they will take OUR jobs and houses, and the men will rape our women.

            I’m accused of being a lefty lovie, whatever that is, how do I dare to support those desperate people, don’t you know they are ALL criminals….
            Listen to Morrison and shudder…


            • zerograv1 April 11, 2013 at 11:24 am #

              I dont read the drum, mainly because of time constraints, there are just too many responses to get through and I’m the same with other media places like SMH…..I used to, but life is busy nowdays…..but I can imagine what attitudes might be being expressed there


            • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

              But fiucking Gillard is doing the dreadful things to incite the attacks Helvi. Are you really so cretinous and partisanly in love with the racist coward that you can’t see that?


              • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

                Sometimes rhetorical questions are best.


              • helvityni April 12, 2013 at 8:18 am #

                What will Morrison do? Tell me, are you going to help Abbott to turn the boats back.
                Stop swearing at me, I’m the only here who would take them all in, this is a big empty place, plenty room for millions.
                Your Gillard hatred is blinding you….


                • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm #

                  Shut up Helvi, no-one is turning back any fucking boats but Gillard surely is putting people on planes in shackles and forcing them straight back to Sri Lanka without letting them make a claim.

                  Take off your blinders, there’s a good girl.


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

        Yes Zero and the maths of the situation really don’t seem to support the reality of that situation.

        What we know based on stated intent is that we need to have capacity for processing 20,000 cases per year. We have roughly 2,000 extra in Christmas island which means about 5 week’s worth. Of additional processing time, if we’re not able to accelerate that by processing 10% faster or putting on more staff, and if we discount delayed cases where establishing the facts is complex.

        So on one view you could say that being at the end of the queue is a matter of waiting no more than a couple of months for the backlog to clear. Which seems slightly weird to me because it would mean a relatively short stay on Nauru ot Manus under even the worst of circumstances?

        My understanding of the political rhetoric, post Houston report, was that they’d be there a lot longer than that. So I’m just asking? Where’s the queue and how long is it supposed to be?


        • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

          We don’t have a capacity to assess just 20,000 claims a year. That is the false notion they spread around.

          About 6 million other visas are assessed every year and 32 million people come in and go out of the country every year.

          There is no queue, to apply for protection people have to be here and there is no quota as to how many people can be here.


          • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

            The maths I used for want of better info is based on the theory that if your intake is set at a certain level then you need to provide capacity to meet that ongoing commitment.

            The assessment of an asylum seeker is different than a tourist visa or a migration one. The test as we all know is a well founded fear of persecution. How they establish that I don’t know, but you’ve told us in the past that it takes about 18 hours. I suppose that means we need quite a few assessors, but the point that the highly visible detained population is far smaller than the stated quota seems sound, whether you really believe in quotas or not. And that point informs my real question as to how long the poor buggers who’re sent to the Islands are supposed to have to wait.


    • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

      Doug, we are jailing babies for fucking life you dingbat.

      And they are refugees under the law so what the hell is your lazy point? Resettlement is the last option, it has no legal basis and it is lies that continue to make the abuse of the innocent acceptable to cretins like you who refuse to consider that Gillard is a cruel, racist coward and so are all the others in parliament who support the treatment.


      • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

        Gaoling babies for life, is it? Their parents can ask to be repatriated at any time. But they do not want to go back; therefore they have to await the results of their applications.

        If the applications are rejected, they appeal; if the appeal fails they are removed. If it succeeds they are accepted into the community.

        The have to follow the process. The process is that there is mandatory detention.

        Do you think that there is any chance whatsoever of getting a change through the parliament, or that the general electorate would support it?


        • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

          They are refugees who can’t go back you fuckwit.

          And we have more refugees living in the community now than in prison.

          Jesus Christ, are you a moron.


          • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

            If they are genuine refugees they will be accepted in; they have to follow process.

            Your Tourettes’ is bad today.


            • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

              They are genuine refugees but are still in prison you imbecilic clown.


        • zerograv1 April 12, 2013 at 12:40 am #

          Doug, your logic is quaint, if I argued that it was ok to gas 6 million people because the electorate supports it and there was no chance of getting a change through Parliament, would that justify it? Its precisely the same argument your using to make them “follow the process”. Or do ends justify means in your book? C’mon theres a better way and you know it


          • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 8:06 am #

            I don’t accept that the analogy is valid.

            There are several issues here, all conflated into one miasma.

            I sympathise and empathise with your frustration. But the problems really are not capable of a “solution”, and are just barely manageable.


            • zerograv1 April 12, 2013 at 8:37 am #

              So what your saying is that offshore processing ala the Howardites was right all along and you personally dont have a better idea on how to deal with the issue? Is that it?


              • helvityni April 12, 2013 at 8:58 am #

                zero, you have not ever said here how you would handle the boat people situation, please tell us.

                I’m happy to educate, and train Australian youth so we can stop importing skilled people from places where their own countries need them.

                I’m happy to stop all immigration and take an equal or a larger number of asylum seekers, boat people, refugees.

                I’m happy to even let them all in just stop Marilyn swearing at me; we can easily fit millions more people here, it’s a big country we have here, and sparsely populated.


                • zerograv1 April 15, 2013 at 11:43 am #

                  Sorry about the delay in replying, work has consumed all my time lately. My suggestions (some admittedly cut and paste from others ideas)
                  1. Fix the problem at its source, stop supporting military action that is creating refugees in the first place.
                  2. A public campaign – perhaps TV series – highlighting the contribution in history from many of the less expected migrants to this country. Afghan Camel drivers opened up the interior for instance, European migration broadened the menus, recognition of just how reliable the recent intake from African nations are as workers – keen, studious, honest, family oriented – we have to fight the wrong perceptions that are lazily accepted here….and reverse the fear mongering.
                  3. Funding for much faster processing of claims as per overseas countries, Australia is stingy and slow at funding this….yes its additional taxpayers money spent on more PS salaries but its offset by a reduction in the very high cost of detaining people in centers. Fast processing allows those deemed safe and suitable to shore up employment gaps, meet our obligations with the UN and quickly act on those who’s claims fail for security or other reasons giving them the opportunity to try elsewhere without wasting months and years of their lives in detention (I’m actually surprised I have come to that view as its shared by Senator Hanson-Young, a green extremist I cant stand and usually think of as a bit of a moron)
                  4. A mixture of accommodation options – detention centers have their place (for suspect cases) but they shouldn’t be the first point of call. This is probably the toughest one to solve but community based accommodation by those volunteering to host, interior communities have done this eg Olympic Dam and have succeeded with it, IMO Detention Centers should only be used by those who’s profile indicates they might need security or crime assessment. Refugees don’t help themselves when they take the advice of an agent who recommends “no paperwork” if there is anything that might jeopardize their claim.
                  5 Stop debating it, make a decision and stick to it. Regular statistics from the government putting in proportion the number of employed refugees compared to the workplace size would shrink the ridiculous amount of alarm about “stealing jobs”. Even if every single landed refugee got a job it ends up being less than 0.44% of the total workforce! Hardly grounds for widespread unemployment is it?

                  IN summary I think an awareness campaign is needed


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

        Marilyn your problem seems to be that you’ve only two speeds stopped and tourettes.

        Seriously I don’t agree with Doug either, but the “jailing babies for (explicit deleted) life” comment is hyperbolic. Jailing babies is always bad, and since we know kids have been detained I don’t see the need to overstate it. We keep on hearing that it isn’t supposed to be happening and politicians have promised repeatedly to fix it, so we need to acknowledge that fact as a failure that they’re to be held accountable. So why not do that rather than simply using outrage as a blunt weapon to bludgeon Doug with, because all the criticism and righteous scorn you’ve heaped on Gillard no matter how justifiably won’t get any of us to a place where we’ve a refugee policy that actually works in anyone’s favour.

        And if you don’t know that much by now, then look who’s calling others a dingbat!


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

          Bla bla bla it’s a comfy fence fence bla bla bla wriggle bla bla bla adjust goal post bla bla bla their stick is bigger bla bla bla are you sleepy yet bla bla bla what was the question bla bla bla endless waffling =affirmative action bla bla bla


          • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

            Well if you’re going to beat like a sheep you’re in the wrong place. This is argument, five minutes or the full half hour. If you want Abuse try Barnard in room 12.


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

              “beat like a sheep”

              I presume there’s an ‘L’ missing.
              Could it be the one on Gillards forehead?


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

                Quite possibly, but I’d still be checking Abbott’s for a 666 if I were you.


                • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 11:35 pm #

                  I am not superstitious like you and Abbott.


                  • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 11:41 pm #

                    Or afraid of the dark. Yeah, we know!


          • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 8:10 am #

            To quote Hypo :

            “Gillard baaaad Gillard baaaad Gillard baaaad Gillard baaaaad Gillard baaaad” (repeat until nauseous)


        • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:46 pm #

          They are jailed for fucking life you moron. Do you think I wrote that for the hell of it?

          Ranjini had a baby in prison, ASIO and DIAC claim she will never be released and will never be charged so her baby is born into life prison.

          For fuck’s sake go and read something.


          • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 5:17 pm #

            So you’re saying somebody who I’ve not heard of had a baby in detention. She’s a genuine refugee to your certain knowledge, because you know better than the assessors and she has no option to either return or to apply in any other country. And you can prove this?

            If you can I think it may make a good case before either the high court or the UN human rights commission, and if as you say we’re running a virtual Gitmo by proxy the I think it should be political dynamite.

            But I will say this. If you want me to believe something, or be persuaded to your cause, treat me with more respect and don’t expect me to do your research for you. Okay!


            • Di Pearton April 12, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

              I know there is the odd contraceptive faillure, but I wonder why anyone in these awful situations would decide that now is a good time to have a baby?


              • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

                That question could I suppose depending on facts that we don’t know be interpreted a couple of way neither of which would make it a bad question.

                The problem of course is that without knowing the circumstances we can’t judge, nor should we.


              • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

                I personally think you’re asking the wrong question, at the wrong end of the process.Is there a blame thing in your question as well?


                • Di Pearton April 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

                  I’m not sure about the blaming. Every circumstance is different. I just don’t believe that these women are less thoughtful than I am, and I don’t think that in their dreadful situation, I would think it a good idea to have a baby. What about you?


                  • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 8:37 am #

                    Are you aware that she had settled into suburbia, had her kids enrolled in school, married a man she met here and then found out she was pregnant to him 2 days after the surprise detention?


                    • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 9:26 am #

                      We are a punishing society, the original convicts who came here, had a hard life.
                      They were punished harshly, they survived. Now it’s our turn to punish.

                      We lock up the boat people, the most desperate, we shrug our shoulders and say: we did not invite them here.

                      What harm is Ranjini, a mother of three, going to do to Australia, a school shooting or rob a bank.


                    • Di Pearton April 13, 2013 at 9:57 am #

                      No, I wasn’t aware of this particular situation. I was speaking more generally. But was her claim for refugee status accepted, then revoked? I guess if we accept that women are equal, we can’t also use the ‘mother of three’ to claim that she is not dangerous, can we?


                    • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 11:10 am #

                      The government wont say it, but the Letter’s to Ranjini page openly discusses her frank admissions during interviews with Immigration. Reading between the lines (and its all there out in the open) she admitted to supporting her previous husband who was a Tamil Tiger. Although they are largely disbanded now there is a fringe element worldwide that seek to enter Western society’s and attempt to garner support for the cause through violent means in displaced comunities from the area. (NOTE: Most Tamil Tigers do NOT do this – its a fringe group of remaining extremists) Ranjini admitted to harbouring wounded Tamil’s , assisted in various activities, supporting her husbands efforts and due to the ongoing activities of the fringe group I believe this is why she was classified as a risk. Reading the whole of that site I think the authorities may be being a little paranoid in her case, she doesnt read like a troublemaker at all to me….but this post is just offered as a possible explanation for her classification.


                    • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

                      Zero, many women support their husbands ,husbands are after all fathers as well, and often the only breadwinners.

                      It does not mean that these women on their own bet would do anything unlawful, it might just family solidarity.

                      Is no good punishing wives and children for the sins of husbands and fathers.


                  • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 9:36 am #

                    You’re not her,I’m not her.I don’t believe any of us has a time machine.
                    One of us is judging her on the pregnancy.It isn’t me.


                    • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm #

                      I accuse:

                      I suspect that having the baby is being used cynically as leverage to pressure the DIAC the government and the people of Australia into accepting someone – the father I presume – as a refugee when he does not qualify.

                      If that is so it is a cynical misuse and abuse of the system, a moral and ethical blackmail.

                      But that is nothing new for the asylum seeker lobby : the cynical use and abuse of the Bakhtiyaris and others to promote their anti-mandatory detention agenda is a case in point.

                      The Bakhtiyari children themselves criticised the do-gooders for promoting their own agenda at the expense of the putative refugees.

                      Tell me that it is not true that the asylum seeker lobbyists would rather the asylum seekers were kept in detention than allow them to be repatriated, to increase the moral pressure on the DIAC and the government; ie on the people of Australia.

                      I accuse.


  2. Ray (novelactivist) April 11, 2013 at 9:13 am #

    The ALP was responsible for the White Australia policy. Unions fearing the foreign worker. Pauline was popular amongst the Blue Collar. The working class has always had its racists and bigots. and Gillard represents the Blue Collar faction that now controls the ALP. Should we be surprised? It is about time progressives realised the ALP has betrayed them, utterly.


    • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 9:55 am #

      Ray, do you think this is because working class people have a shared and long collective memory of bosses playing off of workers against other workers, as with Margaret Thatcher and the coal miners?
      Maybe working people are just trying to avoid falling or being pushed into the same pit as third world people, eg Gina Stoneheart’s “two dollars a day”.


      • Ray (novelactivist) April 11, 2013 at 10:59 am #

        Yes Paul, it did occur to me. Given that I come from a blue collar family I can attest that the racism is often just pure, unadulterated racism and bigotry.


        • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 11:25 am #



    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:39 am #

      Did it occur to you that the white collars have moved to the blue corner?
      Any so called progressive have well given up on Labor.

      Those defending Gillard still, cannot claim to be progressive in any way shape of form.


    • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

      I meant to say earlier Ray, I think you’re right, but you know my concern is that it’s hard to see our way clear to risking an Abbott government.


  3. Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    DQ is obviously only capable of swallowing ALP propaganda and yet totally immune to the evil MSM.
    The rest of us are just seeing things.Poor us,licky him.

    Gillard is playing with desperate lives on one hand and racist minds on the other.
    And it is all just a game to her.The more she jumps through Howes hoops, the more like Abbott she becomes.
    She is way worse than Howard ever was.And she has done more damage to our national psyche than Hanson ever managed.


  4. megpie71 April 11, 2013 at 10:41 am #

    I was born in 1971. The White Australia policy was ended in 1973. I have two half-Chinese cousins whose citizenship is Canadian, and this is more than likely due to the White Australia policy. Further, three of my grandparents arrived in Australia by boat and at least one of them never became an Australian citizen.

    What right do I have to criticise asylum seekers, no matter where they come from?

    (It’d be an interesting question to ask the various demagogues and rabble-rousers on this subject: “Name your most recent emigrant ancestor. Where were they from, and under which circumstances did they enter Australia?” And let’s not forget – the first European arrivals to this country were “unauthorised arrivals” who turned up in boats.)


    • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

      WEll Abbott and Gillard both came on boats as assisted poms. Who the hell are they to say others can’t be here.


      • Di Pearton April 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

        Yes, I don’t think that this is spoken about enough. Both families were economic refugees. Abbott’s family left others to fight for the Britain he loves so much! What is the go with that??


  5. paul walter April 11, 2013 at 11:31 am #

    Perhaps a better title for the thread would be, “The demonising of blue collar patsies and racial others alike, for the sins of the corporate and bourgeois elite”.


    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 11:41 am #

      Or 99% Racist Policy is Better than 100%, cos.


    • Jennifer Wilson April 11, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

      PW as I understand it those most vehemently against boat arrivals are white collar


      • helvityni April 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm #

        Agree Jennifer, I have noticed that on ABC’s The Drum the posters against the boat people are usually the ones with good spelling, grammar and sentence structure…Liberals from private schools, we have some of them here in Bowral.
        The working classes are also usually more generous…


      • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

        No doubt.
        They are victimhood/ entitlement mortgage belters who have got themselves into deep debt chasing an illusory consumerist lifestyle then expect poorer workers, people on welfare and refugees to pay for it.


  6. hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    Okay I agree with practically everything that’s been said here but we have to talk about what hasn’t as well.

    On Doug’s comment I’d be cheered to hear that this was in fact the case, and not entirely surprised. I recall that even during the Howard years after the departure of Mr Burns when Amanda Vanstone took over immigration she did one radio interview where she explained much the same reality. At the time I had been unaware of very much information about the numbers only that there was a vigorous debate and that people I took to be generally quite xenophobic hated refugees. So I was surprised to hear that one way or another we were taking in most of the boat arrivals almost whether we liked it or not. Later this became an argument showing up the Howard government’s record of tough talking for the hollow manipulation of racist public opinion for the deceit that it really was, but it also fed the demand for deterrence.

    I’ll skip the gruesome details of how the Gillard government have barely progressed beyond that point, but mention the fact now for the sake of those who’ll berate me if I neglect to. I suspect the same thing is happening in terms of the intake of refugees approaching and occasionally exceeding our quotas under Labor and I’m glad, I guess, that some sort of humanitarian program persists despite the base nature of the political conversation we’re still having in this country.

    In either case I find it absolutely despicable that we don’t have any love for our humanitarian program, that we fail to take pride in the good we can do, and most of all that we fail so miserably to stand up to the tacit racism, call it xenophobia or just isolationism that has been allowed to fester and subvert human rights at the beck and call of a long line of dog whistling scum from Billy Hughes to Hanson to Morrison.


    The second thing that goes largely unsaid is that this is a broken humanitarian program that the international community needs to get together and fix. We’re not alone in the world in having problems with refugees and we’d be somewhere between stupid to purely ignorant if we didn’t recognise that first World Countries being the only destinations for displaced people is problematic. Globally there are simply too many displaced people and too few destinations that will take them.

    We can talk about how humanitarian programs should do better to respond to problems at the source and why dispersing people to far flung places of refuge may be culturally devastating in precisely the way persecutors intended. We may be forced to talk about greatest need when dealing with higher numbers of displaced persons. And here in Australia we need also to talk about the obsessive fear we have of not quite white people borne across the seas to our north in boats.

    My feeling now though is that we need to talk about why we have things like migration exclusion zones and deterrents and why we even bother to process people if as it happens most of the time we know of no way to say No to people. When they arrive here by means that bigots falsely describe as illegal and humanitarians rightly rebuke, then the argument is by no means over. We still have to figure out what to do with these people. And when it comes to understanding the reasons why we haven’t then I have a nagging suspicion that as with the information I described being surprised by when Vanstone explained herself we might find allowing something other than racism to inform the conversation opens up questions as to why we’re weaselling out of our obligations instead of finding better ways to meet them.

    My understanding is that unlike the global community at large we’re not faced with a humanitarian crisis of proportions with which we couldn’t deal were we willing to drop the basically racist rhetoric. I’ve often said take the 6,000 increase we announced, post the Houston report, directly from camps in Indonesia and then let’s see what happens. I’m not at all convinced by the pull factor argument, but nor am I against properly planned population growth. Measures like indenturing some migrants of any category to go and be put to work in regional areas for example may have a certain pragmatic appeal. The fact that we have any kind of immigration policy without a population policy is a joke, and the fact that without as much as asking those questions we’ve assumed the right to incarcerate people, including women and children, without justification is a crime in itself.


    As Jennifer says, we cannot and must not continue to do this.

    I think we need to meet the moral challenge with some practical answers too.


    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

      “As Jennifer says, we cannot and must not continue to do this.

      I think we need to meet the moral challenge with some practical answers too.”

      Then put your money where your mouth is and stop defending the 99% racist party and their 100% proxy leader.
      The very laziest option people have is to send a clear message by their vote.
      Please do not regurgitate the ‘only two possible scenarios’ mantra.

      Beyond the lazy option we can all speak out,lobby etc, and support those who also do those things.

      Hopefully Getup will see that it is time they took the issue of refugees on wholeheartedly and levelled cold hard criticism at Gillard et al.
      Because quite frankly you can bag Abbott and the MSM all you want, but Gillard is claiming she is the PM.
      All that said, I believe racism and refugee hate is here to stay and only a real spiritual leader or grass roots campaigning will change that.
      There aint no-one in sight, and the natives aint restless.


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

          Should I post links of where ALP shining lights professed to never allowing off shore processing?
          Every time you defend Gillard you endorse offshore processing and our excision etc.You validate her position,her back-flips and her betrayals.That is the political reality.You endorse that on one hand China is an imminent threat to us and we need bases in the top end, and you agree simultaneously that they should be allowed to buy out our best land and water because that is ‘in our best interests’.Somehow our ‘yellow enemy’ is our ‘greatest salvation’.
          Whether you like it or not Gillard and Abbott are both flying the ‘Fuck off we are full flag.”

          You’re absolutely right HG.I’m obsessed with getting rid of Gillard and faux Labor.You know what?
          I am proud to do so.It is the most pressing issue this country has.
          Because we need real Labor back.If in the mean time we have to suffer a dysfunctional mess with hung parliaments and Greens and Libs at each others throats, so be it.You certainly know by now I am not buying your scary monster crap.The fear of what we have become is the first battle.


          • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

            There’s a difference between defending the government and attacking the prospect of an opposition that would appear to be at least 30% worse. You should learn to identify it.

            It’s just munted logic to say that to acknowledge Abbott is worse is the same thing as condoning everything that Gillard has done wrong over the journey.

            As for your closing rant, I see your heart may be in the right place in some ultimate sense of what the final outcome might be, but in the meantime and with respect to the 6,000 refugee left in limbo if Abbott gets in, what right do any of us have to expect them to wait while we sort out our political sensibilities?


            • samjandwich April 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

              Hudson – are you from New Zealand?


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

                No Why?


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 3:50 pm #

                It’s okay. Yeah, I picked up “munted” from a sheep shagger mate of mine. Great word though!


                • samjandwich April 11, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

                  Sure is! So onomatopoeic.

                  And apparently, “mint” is used in certain circles to denote something which is fabulous – though the pronunciation is hard to distinguish from its opposite number.

                  Yep, my partner’s a Kiwi, so…


                  • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 4:21 pm #

                    Do you like your roast lamb munted?


                  • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

                    Kiwi, yes that’s the word I was looking for earlier 🙂


            • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

              If they can’t grasp it after all this time, nothing we can say will make any difference.


              • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

                Ditto for you, offshore processing supporter.
                Barracker for big business and locking up women and children.
                Supporter of US bases.
                Hypocritical lover and hater of China.
                Cheerer of union controlled policy.


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

              How the fuck can you lock in Abbotts policies when he has not even been elected and we have no idea of what the senate and HOR layout is?
              You base your entire values base on what might be and ignore what is.
              You’re a slogan tragic.


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

                That’s about the daftest question I’ve ever been asked.

                He has said in the report what he proposes. Do you honestly mean to say you disbelieve that?

                When we vote we always have to assess government politicians on their track record and oppositions on the evidence of the statements and policies they’ve presented us with. Sorry! But there’s just no other way to do it.

                So if the government is bad and the opposition promise to be worse you’ve really only got two choices left. Either you find a third part or independent to vote for, or you reluctantly support the government.

                Afterward there are other things you can do. And if party is ever going to be perfect in your eyes then you’ll probably have to lobby them to change their policies. Maybe in that case we’re also bound to consider who’s more likely to listen to our lobbying, because frankly we’re still going to need to lobby hard on the refugee issue no matter what happens.


                • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

                  No what I am saying is rabies has you by the balls.You keep attacking what might be while defending what is.The what is is unpalatable to enough people to want to smash Labor.
                  I am not doing this shit with you or Paul any more.
                  You have a two faced appraoch whereby you claim to be outraged and have morals and ethics and yet just peddle Gillard defending bullshit, while showing an ineptitude when it comes to valuing our precious votes.
                  To say that we can fix Labor later is as as drug fucked and munted an attitudes as is currently on offer.Your position is far more dangerous than a simple vote 1 for Abbott, because it delivers a permanent and irreparable party usurping the Labor name.

                  You talk the talk.Period.


                  • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

                    I never defended what Gillard has done wrong, which is practically everything on this issue. But if you can’t see that as an alternative the coalition would be worse then your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

                    You’re welcome on to do this any more!


                  • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

                    That’s it Hypo, go off and sulk a while.

                    It is plain as day that Abbott would be worse : your choice is no choice at all.

                    Then start screaming when Abbott’s attempts to “Stop The Boats” come badly unstuck and probably kill hundreds.

                    Scream, Hypo. Start practicing.


                    • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

                      20,000 babies under 5 every day die of starvation and preventable disease and our response has been to take $375 million from them to pay for overseas prisons.


                    • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 8:13 am #

                      Well off you go, Marilyn, save the world. And take the Green with a Messiah complex with you.


          • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

            “So” is the best you can do?


      • samjandwich April 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm #

        Hypo, you’re seriously in danger of having me quote song lyrics at you 🙂

        “As Jennifer says, we cannot and must not continue to do this.

        I think we need to meet the moral challenge with some practical answers too”

        I would argue that this issue is bigger than notions of the contemporary political situation, or of pragmatics. And from my reading of what Jennifer is saying I feel as though we are in agreement here.

        Australia incarcerates and mentally tortures people who were born into, or who have found themselves in extremely deprived and dangerous circumstances, and who have decided to come to Australia by whatever means are available in order to attempt to build a livable life for themselves and their families.

        This is what has to stop, unconditionally. Nothing justifies this, just like nothing justifies any other form of torture.

        What to do with people who arrive in boats is a secondary concern, and while logic dictates that if we can’t torture them then we have to treat them with decency, our starting point should be that we must not torture them. Full stop.

        And why should their reasons for coming here be important? What’s wrong with being an “economic refugee” anyway (and what constitutes the line between being an “economic” refugee and being a “genuine” refugee? Is it when you can’t buy food, or shoes, or education, or medical care, or a Lexus?).

        Isn’t preventing migration for economic reasons a non-sequitur? Racist arguments aside, one of my fundamental objections to the neoliberal point of view has always been that if we are going to work towards free trade, or to put it differently, a “level playing field”, then isn’t it an intrinsic part of this to allow free migration for economic purposes?

        It’s all a bit sad really, when simply wanting your own government to stop torturing people makes you an “elitist”.


        • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

          It sad when you are so elitist that you expect others to pay your dues for you.


          • samjandwich April 11, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

            You mean like, those who want to keep asylum seekers out because they consider themselves more deserving of living in a wealthy country than their less fortunate water-borne brethren?


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

              No I think he is referring to Labor loading up the party with lying,stealing,bullying unionists and lawyers with slimy mates.
              I believe, unless all the evidence is wrong *Craig Thomson and Julia’s ex flame are also elitists who know how to spend other peoples money.
              (*Yes I know technically he didn’t break any rules, but he sure as hell spent members money by way of his credit card.Even he has not denied it.)


              • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

                Well actually Thomson didn’t, it was a legal entitlement and part of his job to have the bloody credit card.


                • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

                  Well Marilyn,
                  I’ll leave the final finding to the courts.However I am not naive enough to believe that not one of the many accusations is true, and that he at some point abused (took advantage- insert word here——–) a system,albeit a deliberately vague one.That is not to say he was not unfairly set upon by feckless media and caustic opportunistic politicians and bit players.
                  He does have a conscience as well as a credit card.He ‘seems’ to have given one a bigger work out than the other.I doubt he is alone in any case, and am pretty sure Kathy Jacksons shit smells as well.There seems to be something simmering between those two individuals IMO.
                  Lets see how the dice rolls.


    • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

      We don’t have a refugee problem though. It is the refugees who have the problems and we just make them worse.

      There is simply no such thing as a humanitarian quota because everyone has the right to seek asylum.

      So our whole debate here is a lie from the first blush.


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

        Marilyn thanks, but I agree with you in principle that the problem should rightfully be called “the refugee perception problem in the minds of a small but apparently crucial proportion of the Australian electorate”, it’s a bit long for most of even my sentences and most people understand what the problem is. We understand that the received message is often biased, the apologetics self serving and the double standards palpable along with the racist underlying assumptions that inform this whole messed up sordid debate. But since we’re having it anyway excuse my shorthand when I refer to it inoffensively as the refugee problem.


  7. hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

    How’s everyone’s day going so far?



    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

      You won’t hear them admit it, but Labor will probably steal this idea too, and have weapons on board.To ‘sink’ the boats.Our new best friends China will get the contract to make the whole package, while the AWU will oversee the policy drafting.
      Business as usual.
      The only difference is that the Libs are red-necks who brag about their racist policies.Labor slip them through the back door and only ever confess when cornered.
      I expect you to support drones if it comes from Labor, so your links are more like a recommendation of future policy, not a condemnation of the Libs.


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

        Oh dear, who’s inventing policies for parties that haven’t announced them now?

        For the record I don’t support drones being used against asylum seekers, but I expect that for surveillance purposes it is going to happen whether we like it or not.


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

          I said ‘probably’ and you say Abbott will.
          Big difference, but by all means lets go to the dance, but I’ll sit this one out, while you dance on the fence.

          You conveniently ignore or gloss over all the other un Labor elements.
          Like I said, you are happy to fawn on what might happen but all the while defending the policy incumbent.That is hypocrisy if you ‘claim’ to care.

          “Oh I am reallly sorry persecuted woman and child, but heck you should see what the other mob intend to do,in 6 months,if they get in,if they have a majority,if you try again. etc etc.
          You are defending the indefensible, with pure unadulterated partisan propaganda and illogical grandstanding.You are like DQ but you take 500 words to say the same crap.


          • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

            I’m not defending anything!

            I’m simply making the point that Abbott will be worse.

            And I’m not saying probably because that’s redundant.

            If you want to argue that probabilities right down to the last 1% deserve consideration, then Gillard could wake up tomorrow and realise she’s supposed to be leading the Labor party, and Abbott could wake up a gay woman trapped in a man’s body, but I don’t rate your chances of being taken seriously on either count!


            • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 8:59 pm #

              Click to access articles.pdf

              Read and weep about Beazley and McClelland’s snipers and helicopters to shoot refugee boats.


              • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

                Yes I read it and metaphorically speaking I weep for the depths of bastardry it implies. Maybe Abbott should read it too because clearly it made SFA worth of difference as will his nasty little plan.

                The fact is though Marilyn that we’re presently not doing these kinds of things or Abbott wouldn’t be waving his dick in the wind as he clearly is. And that still argues that if we can do something like getting the odd Green a seat in a Labor lead parliament we’d have a negotiating position that might with concerted lobbying do a bit of good.

                The point I’ve been trying to make is that given what we know about both parties with their shitty refugee policies who do you think we’ve any hope of getting to change on this?


              • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 9:29 pm #

                Sorry Marilyn, you cannot possibly introduce evidence which is evidence or which criticises Gillard or faux Labors xenophobic thought bubbles.
                DQs ancestors made Australia what it is today.
                A continent of broad minded saints who decide what criticism they are to take on board, and how many sock puppets it takes to get it through.


      • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

        Beazley wanted armed helicopters.


  8. hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    And the fun just continues.



    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

      Piracy is almost as lunatic as erasing our nation from the map, but not quite.
      If there was any chance of piracy charges there would have been many during Howards term.

      You’re running your argument with news bytes now HG.

      Until such ‘boarding and turning around’ or ‘pirating’ events occur, I’d say you have some catching up to do, in justifying faux Labors current policies.


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

        I’m making the point that an account of event’s and opinions in the words of others exists and continues to unfold despite you and your alternate parallel little universe where the only problem is Gillard!


    • paul walter April 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

      And Abbott’s drones.
      “Avast, ye swabs!


      • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

        Next thing we’ll be hearing will be plans to privatise the drones so that they’re not pirates they’re corsairs!


  9. Mannie De Saxe April 11, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

    Asylum Seeker Petition

    …..and where is Marilyn Shepherd from Angaston in South Australia when we need her??

    It is quite plain that the government, the opposition, the MSM/ABC are all disgusting racists and are playing these cards for political gain as much as they are able.

    Federal politics has become so disgusting that one wants to puke every time any of them appears on tv and/or opens their mouths on radio!

    I come from a country of racist bigots so I know one when I see one, and Australia is full of them!

    Mannie De Saxe


    • Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

      I am here Mannie. Yesterday I phoned ABC morons and asked if they were aware that we ‘don’t own the fucking oceans and borders of the world and they were so shocked they asked Don Rothwell who told them we don’t own the oceans and anyone is allowed to sail on them without interence unless they need help.

      The arrogant racist almost totally white media in this country are as bad as the almost all white racist arrogant polity.


  10. redjos April 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm #


    The petition link doesn’t seem to work – but you can look it up on red-jos.blogspot

    Mannie De Saxe


  11. Marilyn April 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    What shits me more than anything about this is because I criticise the apartheid Israeli policies I am abused for being an anti-Semite but when I advocate for refugees today because we turned away jewish refugees in 1938 and contributed to the most horrific genocide I am a bleeding heart who should shut up or die.

    They all gloat that we are members of the refugee convention because we turned away the jews but then want to turn away other survivors of newer genocides.


  12. doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    Much ado about nothing as a few Tamils wandered into Geraldton. Headed for NZ, they didn’t navigate too well, did they. We should refuel and provision them and send them off to Wellington; that’s where they want to go.


  13. doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

    Nothing anyone has said changes anything I said in the first comment.

    The asylum seekers are being processed in orderly fashion, in accordance with law.

    And we take in every single genuine refugee.


    • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

      Nothing can change my mind,I am DQ.
      My hero is JW Howard who laid my views out perfectly when he said ‘we decide who comes here etc.’
      Further, my rellos fought so that Australians like me(DQ) could maintain our racism in perpetuity.”

      Here’s his post.

      doug quixote June 30, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

      We’ll have to agree to differ on this one HG. I think that we are entitled to our birthright. My parents and grandparents and their parents helped to build this country, and to defend it in time of war. They paid their taxes and so do I and I say that we Australians shall decide who comes to Australia and the conditions under which they come and not otherwise : Not while there is blood in my veins and breath in my body.

      If that sounds like Howard, it is coincidental as he sought to tap into a rich vein of patriotism and nationalism.

      Ask the citizens of any wealthy country whether the citizens of the poor country next door should be able to walk in and access their hospital and health system, get their public housing and use their libraries and take their jobs.

      And then get back to me.”

      Haunting words, aren’t they.


      • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

        Well at least it is an accurate quote. And exactly what is your problem?


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

          The problem is all yours.


          • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

            I don’t have a problem. You and Marilyn on the other hand . . .


            • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

              Good to see you have resurrected qxeau, the big mouthed fuck wit persona who predicted NSW Labor would win the last election.
              You must have fifty sock puppets per letter of the alphabet by now,Daisy.


              • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 8:20 am #

                Gillard baaaaad . . .

                “What’s that Skippy ? NSW Labor? To win in 2011?”

                Never said anything of the sort.

                NSW Labor should have lost narrowly in 2007 if Debnam had not been so pathetic an alternative.
                The debacle of 2011 was predicted by me from the momemt Rees said “I’m going to give it a red hot go!” as DQ cringed into the corner.

                Keneally never had a chance; if she’d been Jesus Christ come again they’d have crucified her.


    • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

      WE don’t have a choice, if they apply here and are refugees we have to take them in.

      The thing is we also harbour over 60,000 non-refugees here so-called illegally without a word.


      • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

        I’m not going to dispute the last part at all, but I think the language of no choice is too strong.

        If, as you say, they are refugees then they should be granted sanctuary, how hospitable the circumstances of that sanctuary are however could be wide ranging and may not even have to be permanent. Nor if accepted are refugees prevented from leaving the country if that is their choice. There would in that cases be choices I would applaud and those I’d disagree strenuously with, but absence of choice might in fact be furthest from the truth and the least of our problems.

        When I first read and commented on this article I had tried to raise the possibility of discussing some of those choices, but sadly thus far nobody is interested in anything but their opinion and their ideology, and I’m beginning to wonder why we’re being like that?


  14. Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

    Here comes the next backflip.


    Perfect plan.Do something nasty, then as we approach the election undo it.This of course should not give false hope to refugees.All racist policies will remain, unless it means getting a 457 worker in for union purposes,in which case the sleazy status quo remains.
    Gillard will be buying a lot more votes yet,and the right wing faithful will help her print the money.


    • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

      Look over there ->

      Maybe this belongs in the Happy Place?

      If I wanted to construe any relevance whatsoever I could ask whether if Gillard were to do a total about turn on detention of asylum seekers would you call that a backflip too, otr a victory for common sense?


      • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

        Going on her record I’d call it a welcome and predictable monumental back-flip.Which would be done for the very same reason she does everything else.

        You need to pull your tongue out of her arse before it gets wedged up her nose.


        • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

          Oh what a simple non leading question is too much for you now is it Hypo? It’s easy to tell that you’re beaten when you resort to insults mate. Give it a rest. I’ve served up more brick bats for Gillard than most people would. Whereas your abilities to perceive the foolhardiness of ignoring how bad Abbott is leave a lot to be desired.

          It’s you who is looking at his tonsils from the inside.


          • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

            Mind the thrush.


      • doug quixote April 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

        Dead right HG. There is nothing she could do to appease the likes of Hypo. There is none so blind as he who will not see.


        • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

          Wrong again dweeb-o-naut.
          I know you have a cognisance/retention problem, so I will refresh your mind one more time Mr Howes.
          At the beginning WE ALL supported Gillard.
          She shat down our necks.We fucked her off, and come election time it will be a fully official fuck off and don’t come back.
          You can continue to lubricate her union owned and run,ovi-positor whenever you see fit.
          However, that’s your racist bigoted choice.

          Your hundreds of banal sock puppets cannot save your credibility’s arse,or Gillards political hide.Although I enjoy watching your transparent attempts.


        • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 10:55 pm #

          It’s can be very hard to see in the dark.


          • Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

            I’ll take your *word for it.
            Not very often we get to have such a small *amount on offer.

            Hopefully full power will be restored soon.And you can see again.
            Until then you’ll have to struggle through under the faint imaginary glow emanating from your heroines Tea Party policy ‘outlet’.


            • hudsongodfrey April 11, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

              Gillard’s bad Abbott’s worse.

              Gillard malus est Abbott deterius est.

              Write it out a hundred time’s by sundown or you know what happens 🙂


  15. Hypocritophobe April 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

    Welcome to the Abbott Proof Fence Square Dance
    Yee haw!!

    “Then grab your partner, dosey doe, swing him around and don’t let go!”
    “Find a fence,climb aboard,defend the one who’s most abhorred”
    “Sing her praise,kiss her arse,go to war on race and class”
    “Refugees are all the same,they’s the ones we need to blame”
    “Lock ’em up,shout ’em down,chase the dark ones outta town”
    “Grab your partner dosey doe,vote for Gillard ,off you go”
    “What she says, she may not do,without a tick from the AWU”
    “And dosey doe your pardner”

    (For those of you feeling left and out, it’s easy to blend in,Just see the bloke in the corner, and grab a straw from him to stick in your in green skin mouth.
    Then y’all will blend in.
    “Oh straw man, a few over here for us Gillard folks!”


  16. Mannie De Saxe April 12, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    Pleased to have you here, Marilyn!

    Just for the record, I am a Jew who, like Antony Loewenstein, criticises zionists who oppress, repress, incarcerate and murder Palestinians and call Israel the apartheid state – I am a South African and have seen it all – and for our troubles we are called self-hating Jews!

    I wonder if Australians realise they are boat people in the same way as the new arrivals, who are entitled to arrive here just as they and their ancestors were – and who isn’t descended in Australia from boat people other than the indigenous population?

    Oh what a tangled web we weave……….!

    I simply cannot see any difference between an Abbott government and a Gillard government in relation to asylum seekers, except I think Gillard has overtaken Abbott in her approach to these unfortunate people who are fleeing their countries because we invaded them and made life hell for them in their own countries!

    Mannie De Saxe


    • paul walter April 12, 2013 at 12:55 am #

      Well, Labor certainly panicked and ran, you wonder why and that’s their cross to bear.
      Abbott and co have whipped up fear and loathing and that would get them hung, in my book.
      None of them have done good.


    • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 1:03 am #

      And you seemed like such a reasonable bloke Manny, and I’d have liked to think I could persuade others besides Doug that Abbott is demonstrably worse than Gillard on this very issue.

      I gather that the rite of evisceration Gillard has performed on Labor values is more painful than anything Abbott could ever do. But if the point remains simply what do we get in terms of our compromised humanitarian programs under Gillard compared with planned reductions and even harsher measures under Abbott and Morrison then there shouldn’t be so much hesitation to follow the evidence.


      • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

        What compromised humanitarian program? They are purely voluntary and have nothing to do with our obligations.

        The obligation we have is to anyone who arrives here and asks for protection, they can only be protected if they are here.


        • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

          Okay so how do you explain the presence of Somali refugees in Australia Marilyn. They don’t come by boat do they. We elect to as you say “voluntarily” take them from the camps in neighbouring countries and offer them protection and resettlement in Australia.

          This is not a bad thing that we do. And I just want to say to you Marilyn that you need to develop a more nuanced stance with respect to all the political realities of our humanitarian program as it still continues to exist (somehow?) despite absolutely toxic politics and deeply racist pockets within Australian society.

          If you fail to reach compromises under those circumstances I suggest your very unpersuasive position consists entirely of an ideological stance wherein you think you’re right appoint yourself the arbiter of our morality and berate everyone using foul language who happens to challenge your views!


    • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 10:07 am #

      Spot on, Mannie.But sadly the God of words has condemned, you based on the fact that you do not orally lubricate the loins of his heroine.

      Cleverly disguised as impartiality lies a ‘Gillard at all costs approach’.
      Up until the bullies reinstalled Gillard a couple of weeks ago,young HG had Labor painted as a wreck which must get rid of Gillard.Now it’s all hands on deck as the lean, keen, union machine climbs aboard the pork barrel express.

      Stick to your guns Mannie.Gillard is a greater political pox because of her scamming betrayals.A Tea Party Trojan horse with union thugs pimping her wares.
      Abbott is just what he has always been.An enemy we know.

      Respect to you for your connection to reality.


  17. helvityni April 12, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    “What will Morrison do? Tell me, are you going to help Abbott to turn the boats back.
    Stop swearing at me, I’m the only here who would take them all in, this is a big empty place, plenty room for millions.
    Your Gillard hatred is blinding you….”

    That is my reply to Marilyn higher up…and once more, scream at the ones who are against boat people, Marilyn.


  18. gerard oosterman April 12, 2013 at 8:59 am #

    The answer is staring us in the face with the millions of refugees swirling around the world but mainly dealt with by countries already bursting with refugees and poverty, countries such as Australia and many others should and must practice a belief in ‘compassion sans frontières’.
    There is no other choice if we stake a claim to be part of humanity.


    • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 9:59 am #

      I’ll say it for you, then shall I?.
      Could it be that the Anglos don’t want them? And the 2 red-neck Tea Party born again Anglo immigrants who lead or will lead this country after the election are fuelling and amplifying the hotbed of racism.
      If you like what is happening to refugees in Australia, or want worse in the near future. vote ALP or coalition.
      Check out the 457 visa applicants in Gillards office and within the unions which control her.
      Get back to me with a list of their ethnicity.


      • Marilyn April 12, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

        I love docos, they are the greatest form of information ever invented.

        American Experience is a history series on HBO that has now run for 25 years and has facts based stories.

        A few weeks back I watched one called America and the Holocaust – I believe it is on uTube.

        It showed in terrible detail with documented evidence how the US and UK conspired to force jews to stay home, for all their whining now the US only took in 200,000 jews for the whole period 1936-1945 because they had a direct policy to keep them out.

        Meanwhile the wealthy were doing great business with Hitler.

        After the war led by Henry Morgenthau against Truman’s wishes, the allies slaughtered upwards of 9 million Germans and ethnically cleansed 16 million from all over Europe before sending them to Berlin to be raped, starved, jailed and frozen to death.

        They were fed less than the Germans fed jews, they were jailed in worse prisons and during that whole time no-one bothered to help the jews.


        • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:29 pm #

          Lap it all up, it must be true.

          A documentary is the personal view of the documentary maker. They are supposed to check their facts, but nothing says that they have to present those facts fairly. Think of “lies, damned lies, and statistics” and how lies are told by selective quotation.

          Engage your powers of discrimination and comprehension : who is telling us these facts, where are they from, and what agenda are they pushing?


    • samjandwich April 12, 2013 at 10:08 am #

      Yes I’m leaning towards this view as well, but it seems the only we we’re ever going to find our common ground is when we are invaded by aliens… oh but if as the mythology has it aliens are bipedal and have two eyes then some of us will probably feel a sense of kinship with them as well.

      I’m doing my bit by not having kids, but despite the fact that we are looking for more acceptable ways to increase Australia’s population, intercountry adoption is getting more and more difficult. In fact it’s nigh-on impossible these days.


    • hudsongodfrey April 12, 2013 at 10:35 am #

      It’s not that I’d disagree Gerard, but if you’ll allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment there are arguments I hear whenever we appeal to compassion that aren’t entirely irrational, or that some might say are far too rational.


      The requirements of asylum are a well founded fear of persecution, but we might not want to act as you recommend with the best of intentions only to find we’re taken disproportionate advantage of. The subtext to the debate we have in Australia has been that if we were to open the borders of all countries to all asylum seekers in an effort to deal with the problem of so many displaced persons then most would try to make their way to the best countries in which to live. Monogolia I would wager would still be the most sparsely populated place.

      Maybe this also involves putting aside considerations that when whole displaced ethnic communities are pushed out in an act of cultural genocide we tend to give further effect to that when we split them up. But fairness seems to be better served by saying that if they’ll be safe in Kazakhstan then some of them should be sent there as well as the countries that already take their fair share. Whereas cultural continuity seems to be better served by resettling people relatively close to their departure point in case they actually prefer to return when it is safe to do so.


      These are all the sorts of theories and scenarios I hear because people throw them at me whenever I express the view, as Jennifer has, that the crueller aspects of what Australia has been doing are unconscionable to me.

      It’s bullshit to say that we argue any of this in a racism free vacuum when we so often sense that people are pretending to our of deference to political correctness. Even the sensitivities that lead us to recognise this fact have something to say about how pervasive the notion of difference really is.

      But it’s equally unrealistic to say that dealing with displaced people doesn’t have an impact and isn’t caught up with notions of social engineering whereby if you bring in X number of people part of the equation always works better if we can say there will be Y benefit. I don’t much care for some of the above arguments or their many counterparts favouring notions of some people being more needy than others that happen to coincide with fewer cultural or racial differences than those deemed least worthy. But I think I can see that we only counter them when we say this is what we think the numbers will be and this is how we’re going to manage it for the benefit of….etc.

      We can argue perhaps to place refugees in regional areas. We can talk more about the kinds of skill resources they may have, even if it means recognising that unskilled labour does have its place within some struggling industries and public works programs. We can look forward to the next generations perhaps, or we can favour offering temporary protection on a voluntary basis over 457 visas in many cases.

      And yes, I know any and all of those ideas may be flawed or rely to heavily on generalisations, but I think that there has to be a middle ground between the frankly offensive idea that humanitarianism doesn’t exist when many in our community refer to it as “opening the floodgates” and the opposite extreme of being unwilling to plan for anything properly because we fear subverting an altruistic impulse in favour of an exploitative one.


  19. gerard oosterman April 12, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    But, the first thing required to do is when a boatload of people arrive at our shore is to welcome them and act humanely and compassionately. Separating women, children and men and then sending them to isolated islands behind fences and keeping them there for years does not fall in that category. Neither does it behove us to have some rejected and sent back without a recourse to the reasons of ‘why’ by our ‘intelligence’.
    Go back to the Frazer years when thousands arrived by boats as well without all the manured hatred as expressed today.


    • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 11:04 am #

      Race 1
      The Redneck Cup

      When you barrack for the horses in the race Gerard you automatically endorse horse racing.



      • gerard oosterman April 12, 2013 at 11:12 am #

        I don’t really understand what you are saying or how that relates to what I wrote previously..


        • samjandwich April 12, 2013 at 11:31 am #

          Nor do I.

          Hypo, don’t say I didn’t warn you, in the nicest possible way, of course:

          “There’s a place in the world for the angry young man
          With his working class ties and his radical plans
          He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
          He’s always at home with his back to the wall.
          And he’s proud of his scars and the battles he’s lost,
          He struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
          And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

          Thank you! Oh, oh, yo yo yo oh oh

          Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
          With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
          He’s been stabbed in the back, he’s been misunderstood,
          It’s a comfort to know his intentions are good.
          He sits in a room with a lock on the door,
          With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
          And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

          I believe I’ve passed the age of consciousness & righteous rage
          I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
          I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view,
          Life went on no matter who was wrong or right, ohhhhh

          And there’s always a place for the angry young man,
          With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
          And he’s never been able to learn from mistakes,
          He can’t understand why his heart always breaks.
          His honor is pure and his courage as well,
          He’s fair and he’s true and he’s boring as hell!
          And he’ll go to the grave as an angry old man.

          Whoa, and there’s always a place for the angry young man
          With his working class ties and his radical plans
          He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
          He’s always at home with his back to the wall.
          And he’s proud of his scars and the battles he’s lost,
          He struggles and bleeds ‘til he hangs on the cross
          And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

          Oh oh oh, yo yo yo oh oh”


          • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

            Perfect Sam! Hypo to a tee!


            “A sometime Green with a Messiah Complex” as I have called him.


            • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

              You’d know more about religious toadying than me ‘Miowarra’,Daisy may, Gillard is Your Own Personal Jesus


              • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

                I know! It’s a guessing competition!

                Do you really think I’m “someone else” Hypo?

                Doug Quixote is not the name I was born with, it may surprise you to learn. But no, i’m just me and no others. I’ve never been booted out of any blog, so I haven’t needed to change pseudonyms.

                As you may have gathered I don’t intimidate easily, and my general rule is to reply politely if I am addressed politely.

                But I may make exceptions for trolls.

                As for religion, I detest it in all its forms. It is mythology. That does not stop me from using and abusing the imagery of religion that abounds so tiresomely.


              • helvityni April 12, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

                Hypo, I know who Miowarra is and it isn’t DQ, that made me laugh…Daisy May is a Labor voting girl/woman, with whom I often agree with.


                • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

                  U huh.


                  • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:22 am #

                    “U huh”? Does that mean “I am deeply sorry DQ for ever doubting you”

                    or does it mean “I am such an idiot for getting it so wrong, and I’ll try to do better in future” ??? (LOL)


                    • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 9:38 am #

                      It is a patronising fob off.Not the first time something went over your 500 pseudonymous heads.


                    • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

                      Perhaps I am Helvi in disguise? Or am I really MTR doing a troll? Hmm, that could be it. The Scarlet Pimpernel?

                      They seek him here, they seek him there
                      Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
                      Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
                      That damned elusive Pimpernel
                      He meddles with the Frenchie Revolution
                      Popping in and out each week
                      Spoiling every lovely execution
                      La, what cheek!
                      They seek him here, they seek him there
                      Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
                      If you should see him, please do give a yell!
                      That damned elusive Pimpernel
                      They seek him here, they seek him there
                      Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
                      Oh, Pimpy, how the Frenchies do implore you
                      Simply to stay home in bed
                      With all your interference
                      It’s a chore to chop a head!
                      They seek him here, they seek him there
                      The ladies seek him everywhere!
                      He give the Frenchies nothing but frustration
                      Sink me! He’s a spoilsport
                      Each and every damned decapitation
                      He cuts short
                      They seek him here, they seek him there
                      Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
                      Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
                      That damned elusive Pimpernel


        • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

          OK, I must admit, I thought you had the nouse to join dots.
          (So you can benefit here too,Jammy.

          Which you clearly aren’t.
          At this stage your entire life savings of your moral high ground on this issue, is on the chestnut mare Gillard.

          And Jammy I like the song.It’s nice gesture.Although I have never been into Elton John impersonators much.

          Anger of course is much more productive than apathy.
          Not that you’d care.


          • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

            A Billy Joel song, Hypo. But it suits you perfectly.


          • samjandwich April 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

            Or to put it another way – “you are either with us, or you are with THE TERRORISTS!”


            • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

              You tool.
              The sort of simpleton crap the Gillardist spruik.

              Song for you would be Simple Man

              A you said,please leave the genes in your holster.


              • samjandwich April 12, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

                pro·jec·tion (noun) \prə-ˈjek-shən\:
                a : the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective; also : something so perceived
                b : the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety


                • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 2:11 pm #


                  Mentally or physically inactive; lethargic: “we sat around in a torpid state”.
                  (of an animal) Dormant, esp. during hibernation.

                  numb – sluggish – listless – inert


                  • samjandwich April 12, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

                    You know this is actually quite ironic: i often find myself at pains to reassure others that I am in fact a simple person, but I never seem to be able to convince them.

                    It appears however that I may finally have found someone who understands!


                    • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

                      You’re confusing ‘understand’ with recognise.


  20. Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    HGs dream comes true.Not.
    Yep I can really see this moron doing a deal with the greens, in a hung parliament.
    (Keeping in mind he is Julias boss)

    You reckon Abbott has NO chance with a green senate.

    Listen to this gimp go.


    • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

      Both Labor and the Greens had to part ways and seek to differentiate themselves, about a year to six months out from the next election. That is exactly when they had their little tiff.

      The alternative was a merger, not likely given the extremes within each party.

      After the next election, the Greens and Labor will again join ranks, and the Greens will have their price for support; a price Abbott would never pay; Labor may well agree.

      The Greens and the Coalition have precious little common ground; a Coalition victory would see the Greens sidelined.


      • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

        You wish.
        I think you will find the AWU ultimatum will wreck your plan.
        As long as Howes considers he is the one who has Gillards back, there will be no deals done with the greens.And I sincerely hope (believe) the greens are clear about this to the electorate, so people can vote accordingly, because quite frankly the greens would be right in not even sharing a table with a megalomaniac like Howes.
        The greens should seek the deserted Labor left vote all for themselves.
        Labor will never return there.
        I hope the greens use articulate preference swaps like they did in WA.

        I think you’ll find the gloves are now well and truly off.The honeymoon you seek is never going to happen with Milne and Howes as opposing forces.


        • doug quixote April 12, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

          Never is a long time; pre-election is never. Post election is another universe.

          They are all politicians, even if some are a little green. 🙂


          • Hypocritophobe April 12, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

            Again you show your wet behind the ears naivety.
            I think you’ll find the greens are currently doing what faux Labor are incapable of doing.
            Sticking to their core values.Just because the fuckwits of faux Labor will do anything to feel a throbbing member, don’t assume the greens are likewise superficially desperate.
            I am seriously so looking forward to the post election conversations with you.If you did work up the courage to front up.

            Milne will not do business with Howe.


            • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 12:00 am #

              According to many of your past comments to me Its a moot point to even discuss Labor’s ability to work with the Greens after the election. The way you’ve been carrying on Howes, Labor and your pet hate will all certainly be decimated. Which brings us back once again to the annoying question of how well we can expect the Greens to work with Abbott or vice versa.

              The Greens on the other hand, fine upstanding types though I think they truly are, did business with Gillard quite amicably when it came to negotiating the Carbon tax. That as it happens may be as close as we come to having evidence of Milne and Howes being thrown together on the same side of politics.

              I’d go back further to 2010 when Abbott basically needed one more seat to form government and Gillard three or four to pull an unlikely coup and save the election by forming the minority government we now have. Adam Bandt pretty much pledged to back Labor straight out of the gate, begging a question in some minds as to what beating Lindsay Tanner was all about anyway. And Abbott, well he never even looked like trying to negotiate negotiate with him. And it could’ve cost him the Prime Ministership. So I think that speaks volumes for how much Abbott and the Greens are in love with one another.

              And again I do think if we’re going to abide by the concession that was made by mine host, then this really ought to land up in the Happy Place! 🙂


              • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 12:12 am #

                The shape of the HOR post election could be such that the Green’s have no influence in how the lower house votes. Its a very real possibilty that the likely coalition swing will be enough for an outright majority in the Lower House. The maths in the Senate are a completely different outcome with a likely balance of power resting with the Greens (Expected 9 senators), I expect some swapping in Independants but no increase of number (ie Katter +1 or 2 and Indies -1 or 2). This means that the opposition to the Libs comes from the Upper House only and sets up a potentially challenging situation for the Liberal party getting their legislative platform implemented. How that gets modified, comprised and amended to gain passage is anyone’s guess…but it also means that both major parties stated policy positions pre-election are effectively meaningless since neither are likely to be able to carry them through unaltered. Kind of changes the shape of the future doesnt it?


                • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 10:15 am #

                  I’m thankful in a way that the phoney election campaign that we’d been have earlier seems to have waned for the moment and probably won’t start up again in earnest until after the budget. That’s when the coalition are going to have to deal with the more onerous task of explaining the black hole in their costings and how they’re going to manage to drop the Carbon Tax without ending the income tax cuts that came with it. When drawn on the fact that some of their more austere economic views are liable to be deeply unpopular and don’t feed into a lowering the cost of living rhetoric then I think they’ll find it tougher than current polls project. Abbott is at his weakest when he has to explain anything to do with economics or to deliver bad news. He prevaricates and generally looks and feels weaselly before the cameras whenever he’s caught on the back foot. He’s a known gaffer who’s going to have to face the tough political interviewers like Leigh Sales and probably front at least one edition of Q&A, and he’s been found out before in those forums before.

                  So if it is at all still likely that he will get in after all that then I doubt that it will be with the ringingest of mandates we’ve ever seen. The possibility that it could be more of a vote against Gillard’s Labor than for an Abbott government may make all the difference. Some of the drift away from Gillard is likely to go the ABA (Anyone but Abbott) candidates, with progressives already gravitating towards the Greens.

                  So while I tend to agree that on current polling it looks like only a miracle could save Labor, I don’t agree that all is already lost or even will be if Abbott gets in with the same kind of slim mandate that Gillard had. When landslides do happen then the opposition parties, even while technically able to block government bills in the Senate, often only bargain for a few changes around the edges because they accept a mandate exists to broadly support major planks of government policy. If on the other hand the matter seems further from settled at the ballot box we’d probably still see a Battle Royale over the Carbon Tax.

                  If Abbott had any kind of sense he’d morph “scrapping” the Carbon tax into “replacing” it and do the horse trading he needs to with the Greens to make that happen. But he won’t because he’s fundamentally unable to deal with the Greens.

                  And make no mistake I think former Labor supporters who vote Gillard out of office will wake up the following day with very sore heads. Feeling far less conflicted but ruing the fact that with Morrison running immigration policy we’re in for years more of palpable racism, dog whistle politics and an increasingly desperate sense of frustration among humanitarians at what’s being done in our name.

                  Combine that with a similar set of beefs on the part of Unionists and workers in general, who increasingly aren’t unionised, being screwed one way and another by the two speed economy that Labor hasn’t done nearly enough to address. And Liberals, who’ve always given less than a shit about manufacturing, will only make that worse by smuggling back their old WorkChoices policy under another name.

                  So the fear really is that Abbott will be given reign to do any and all of these things that we basically rejected when we voted Howard out of office as recently as 2007. I think that fear is real and palpable and that the ABA vote is likewise. To draw the starkest contrast you could line up Greens, Humanitarians, Unionists, Women, Gays and other miscellaneous progressives from one side of Australia to the other, and if Abbott gets in that we’re led to assume that the votes that counted are those of Big business, Bigots, religionists and miscellaneous conservatives. A more divisive picture would I think be difficult to imagine.


                  • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 10:27 am #

                    Geez it sounds like he has absolutely no chance at all.
                    And he certainly sounds scary!!

                    But wait what’s that sitting across from him?

                    Oh no……

                    This is the bit you need to keep front and centre.

                    “The possibility that it could be more of a vote against Gillard’s Labor than for an Abbott government ”

                    Not possible,probable.
                    If anyone thinks that the electorate will not smash a government for betrayals and back-flips they are in no way across the mind of Australian voters.
                    If you think a few desperadoes on the net can turn around the ‘f*ck you Gillard and faux Labor ‘ juggernaut, you’re seriously crazy.If you think the juggernaut SHOULD be turned around, you never were Labor in the first place.

                    Small (not so) flaw in the plan HG.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 10:33 am #

                      If the electorate can be made to understand the meaning of the lesser of two evils, or as I think we both increasingly prefer to punish Gillard with a resounding Green vote, then all I’m saying is that the dis may be cast quite differently than polling would have us believe.


              • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 9:34 am #

                I am saying that a Howes led ALP will not do business with the Greens.
                It is as you say a moot point.
                As for whether the greens and the Libs can or will work together,going on past history we’d say no.But before Gillard duped a whole lot of independents, the gurus also said they would never align with Gillard.Mega brain DQ says never say never, so if(big if) the situation arises we will see.As I have also previously said Abbott is also likely to set up a soft trigger on a mild issue to force a DD.
                And all this is psycho babble.

                As for electoral behaviour,I think it is pretty obvious the greens are and will continue to grow their base.You’re the one who has them pegged as a perpetual bridesmaid.

                I can actually think of a few deals where Abbott and the Greens might strike a deal, which would not destroy either brand.Shock horror.It would be folly to think when faced with a newer new paradigm,the results might surprise.
                (Go on tell me that means I am voting for Abbott.)

                And after all this ?Well it still might be an Abbott massacre and the greens might get obliterated.
                Then Howes will be in HIS element.
                Two victories he can spit saliva over.

                I am interested in you and others finally tackling the current situation, not damning my comments as ‘Gillard hate’, and yet somehow to you that translates to Abbott love.It is infanfuckingtile shit.
                Meanwhile YOUR hate for Abbott is driving you, and that’s OK.


                • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 10:30 am #

                  I guess I’m about as realistic about the Greens going from 1 to 75 seats in the space of a single term as you are about Labor under Gillard holding onto government. But I wish either would happen (or a combination of both) for reasons about which you’re entirely correct. I don’t want Abbott to get in.

                  As for the likelihood of Abbott finding and using a DD trigger I have my doubts. I think he’s about the most divisive figure we’ve ever had, and that means people won’t I think trust him with control of the Senate. Australia may vote Gillard out, but I don’t think that means we’d be voting back in the kinds of Howard policies we rejected as recently as 2007. So that move could really backfire on Abbott.


                  • Anonymous April 13, 2013 at 11:00 am #

                    It is extremely unlikely that the coalition will get an outright majority in the Senate, The electoral mathematics pretty much take care of that (Read Antony Green for details). As for the lower house, I would be very surprised if we ended up with minority government again, it could happen and my opinion is based on the how things look this far away from election day, but I sense a change in direction for Labors polling fortunes for the worse, remember they only just clung on last time, I think the last fingernail this time around has lost its grip on the top of the cliff (I know – brave statement) – They have simply underminded and “peed off” too much of their traditional support base to hope to get enough votes in slimly held seats that they not only have to retain but gain more of, It wont happen on a low 30% poll figure and they simply cannot, CANNOT win regardless of what happens between now and then (Yeah again a brave prediction). Minority government only re-occurs if a) Independants retain current lower house seats (2% chance of all of them doing that), Greens retain 1 seat (45% chance), Labor only loses less than 4 seats (0.005% chance)…any other scenario gives Coalition an outright majority in the Lower House, they need 5+ seats and that is about a 98% chance on current polling trends. You don’t have to like it but unless the ALP can get a) a new popular leader (in the electorates eyes) b) Fresh new innovative policy c) Rid of their more stench riddled Howard like policy decisions and differentiate themselves from the Libs BEFORE the election then there is really no reason for the unpopular tide against them to turn is there? And that is exactly what we have been seeing in the polls for over a year now. ALP 50/1 to win outright (and thats miserly)


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 11:55 am #

                      I think the odds will fall differently by the time the campaigns play out, but I knew already that the Senate will retain a strong Green flavour after the election.


                    • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

                      The polls will narrow the gap (they always do) but the reality is that even with a movement sidewise to the greens as a lower house vote, they only come into play if a seat goes to preferences and become wasted votes, in fact damaging labor even more in that case. The ALP need a dramatic game changer to gain momentum, I can’t see anything on the horizon that is going to do that….as Clinton said “It’s the economy stupid” and the ALP is still on a spend and social progressive policy road, The super initiatvie mightt make the budget look better but they need to stop implementing policies that directly upset a sector of the voting public…they need every vote they can get…..and this targetting this or targetting that to fix budget and other deficiencies should be put on hold until after the election. Dare I say it but It’s time for marketing. gloss and spin not street marching social initiatives. The electorate I dont think cares too much about them now that the memory of life under Johnny is dimmed, They need to change course and NOW! No gold medals for worthy second placegetters.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

                      Yeah Zero, but it isn’t the economy that’s the one thing that isn’t in such bad shape.


                    • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

                      Thats true, it isnt the econoomy but the ALP are missing the mark and continually putting potential voters offside – single mums for instance, these are core electorate but they are kicking them in the shins, The same can be said for well to do charddonay socialists that retired on a good lump sum, gone…they need more votes and that means garnering the Howard battlers (and stop upsetting people that might have stayed loyal….its brainless!)


                    • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 2:41 pm #

                      …and what are you Liberals offering to the single mums, please tell us, zero.


                    • zerograv1 April 15, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

                      Im not a liberal Helvi, even though you’re convinced I am


                  • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 11:03 am #

                    His divisiveness is precisely the reason I think the fear campaign is overstated.There is no way on earth the coalition can wield the damage alleged, in the time allowed, and escape electorally unharmed..If people are so shit scared of a change of politics and living for 3 odd years before we can turf someone out, then I think we move into deluded territory.And it doesn’t explain away Howard, who when compared to Gillard was LESS opportunistic and xenophobically inclined.
                    Pragmatically Abbott would have to deliver something the electorate found palatable to remain in.So what does that mean?
                    A first term of glorious gifts followed by a second term of baby eating and burning non-Catholics at the stake, as women are chained to the kitchen and forced to breed in sow stalls?
                    Sounds interesting.(For late night American sci fi)

                    It’s funny you know.Around here I hear all the whining about how good this Labor is, and how we need them to continue, and yet on MANY occasions I have heard the same people say throw Turnbull in,instead of Abbott ant they’d happily live with him.
                    So the question pops up again.How ‘really’ Labor are the Malcolm lovers?

                    The reality is Abbott is circuit breaker the ‘actual deciders’ of the electorate can and will use, based on Gillards un-electability.
                    Us online genii just need to deal with it.
                    In the big picture,no Gillard (and who and what she represents) on the political
                    horizon is good for us all.Ditto for Abbott.It can only be done one step at a time.
                    Given “I” want a ‘real’ Labor opposing Abbott and what “HE” stands for, and what the people outside this blog are saying, I am well and truly betting Gillard will go first.
                    I doubt it will kill us.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

                      I disagree with you vehemently about Howard’s xenophobic inclinations, but that doesn’t mean I’m defending Gillard’s either.

                      On the other hand I agree the Turnbull lovers are an interesting lot. I think people want alternatives and if anything Abbott being divisive and personally unpopular as he has been makes for the very dearth of alternatives that have lead an opportunistic Labor Party to troll the sediment of Australian politics looking to capture the middle ground but effectively pissing off everybody in the process.

                      I think divisiveness is the defining element in Australian politics now. If a true Liberal wanted to laud the virtues of Abbott’s tactical cunning then his side of politics’ ability to play up that divisiveness while in opposition would be the aspect they might point to. It has been very effective as a negativity campaign. The only problem being of course that when he can’t deliver on some of his key appeals to either side then it’s all going to turn to shit if he takes government.

                      I certainly don’t think Abbott’s going to have a first term of glorious gifts, he’s committed to the fraught task of taking all Labor’s gifts away, and has a huge black hole in his costings. He’d inevitably run the time honoured line that once in government he’s found the economy in worse shape that expected as an excuse for failing to deliver his spending promises.

                      As for Gillard going…. Do you think Crean wants the job? Anything I suppose could happen.


  21. Mannie De Saxe April 12, 2013 at 11:43 pm #

    Please sign my asylum seeker petition, about half way back on the postings. You will find it under red-jos or Mannie De Saxe.


    Mannie De Saxe


    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 12:01 am #

      Already done by most of us even if we are maintaining anonymity 🙂


  22. Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    No Reply Available

    @hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 10:33 am #

    You are asking the electorate to adjust ‘their’ expectations to suit the agenda of Gillard Howes et al.And that’s after the back-flips and betrayals.
    Electorate V Gillard if you like.
    Guess what?

    I think as Ato and I have put it before,you know all this and sometimes there is a disconnect (The fence) between what you ‘really’ believe and what you say ( on this topic) . Every now and then what you really believe pops up.


    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

      No Hypo that’s where you have it entirely wrong. Please for once listen. I don’t think that the electorate vote on other people’s ideology or are nearly as taken in by it as you seem to be. Some do of course and they’re welded on party faithful. But election results turn on the swinging voter and she’s liable to vote a mixture of her own conscience, the lesser of two evils and either anyone but Abbott, or indeed anyone but Gillard!

      People are mature enough however in their understanding of politics to weigh up the odds of what preferential voting is likely to deliver in two party preferred terms (and maybe otherwise for an indeterminate number of hopeful Greens supporters). They also by and large realise that if no party will do as they wish on some important issue then they’re going to have to form part of a loud minority or get the the slackivists from Getup, and force their politicians to listen.


      • zerograv1 April 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

        Getup was a great initiative once, its no longer a real voice and largely appeals to people already bolted on in their (leftish) vote, it doesnt persuade anyone to switch sides, but its nice to have a place where like minded people all agree with each other. They will need a hell of a lot more than preaching to the converted to win this election.


        • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

          Getup do not ever criticise Gillard or ant ALP policies any more.In fact there limp lettuce approach to the asylum seeker issue is more likely a front to capture and steer votes to faux Labor.
          They have probably been infiltrated by faux Labor tacticians.
          Getup looks nothing like it did around last election.
          They too have slipped right>


          • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

            And what should that tell you?


            • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

              That GetUp has run its race,they are more a wing of Labor than anything else, and they can now but their limp lettuce back in the holster.


        • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

          Maybe true, but the centre of Australian politics has shifted a long way in my view, and those of many Getup supporters I’m sure, away from the progressive left. Since neither party actually supports things like gay marriage reform or the humanitarian position in relation to asylum seekers I think there is still going to be plenty of room for this kind of activism.


        • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

          Zero, if Getup has according to YOU got a more caring leftist vote, no one is preventing you or anyone else starting another activist group with a more Liberal flavour.


          • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 3:50 pm #

            sorry, read: caring leftist VOICE


      • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

        Then we disagree.You are pushing a pro Gillard barrow and trying to deny it.All roads lead to Gillard with you.Voters punish arseholes.Watch this space.


        • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

          Bullshit Hypo!

          It’s about time you tried to see things through any prism other than your own stridently anti-Gillard ideology. You’ll blaming her for Climate Change and the GFC next.

          Wanting Gillard is quite different from wanting ABA.

          I don’t give a toss about ideology. What I care about are principles and the policies that they produce. That’s where the evidence is! And it is because I find in favour of either the Greens or for practical reasons Labor on several policy fronts that I maintain as my main contention against your position that jumping out of the frying pan into the fire is a bad idea.


          • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

            Your response is becoming almost anthemic.

            You refuse to acknowledge the massive back-flips and betrayals as anything but blips, and the electorate have spoken so many times.You’re in de fucking nial.

            Abbott is supposed to represent the right.
            Not Gillard.Gillard is supposed to be PM, not the union.
            Yelling ‘bullshit’ does not erase reality.



            • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

              There’s no point in even discussing the issue with you when you’re so determined to just bury your head back up where the sun don’t shine and revel in splendid ignorance.

              The purpose of discussing these things is to refine our perspectives through the eyes of the others with whom we’re interacting. I’m hearing all your points loud and clear and I’m willing to take them on board if not for one or two major drawbacks to your argument.

              The main one is that real people, in the real world will be demonstrably worse off under Abbott than under Gillard. I have no real doubt of this and if fact I have what I consider to be reasonably convincing evidence of who they’ll be. I drew up the list this morning. Asylum seekers are at the top of it along with Humanitarians who support protecting refugees, Unionists will be next followed by Environmentalists, Women, Gays and Progressives of all stripes.

              You don’t have an argument to refute that, and never have done. And I’d be surprised if you were able even of a moment to abandon the anti Gillard bluster and present a clearly state non cryptic position on what you actual expect us the fuck to do about this situation!

              All we can do is vote Green if we can’t stomach Labor and hope that forces some kind of minority government rerun with Labor forced yet again to bow to outside pressure. I don’t know how many times I need to tell you Abbott and the Greens are like oil and water, and you my old stick are way overdue to present an acceptable alternative to that situation.


              • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

                “All we can do is vote Green if we can’t stomach Labor and hope that forces some kind of minority government rerun with Labor forced yet again to bow to outside pressure.”

                So stop flogging Gillards dead f*cking meat, as palatable.
                Or be seen as another one of champions pretending otherwise.
                You claim ‘I” have no argument?
                Yours is, ‘she’ll do till someone better comes along’.
                How frigging pathetic is that.You think Labor will reform under Gillard and the union controllers?Really?

                Like I said,the people outside this blog have her as (to quote QLDers)

                Farkn gorn maaaate.
                All your points depend on Abbott ruling within his own right,getting shit through the senate,avoiding a revolt from within if he goes psycho,voter backlash,media conspiracies,and him sticking to his word, and all your “I know what he’s planning” projections coming true.
                That’s more mini series than I have time or inclination for.Call HBO.

                So tell me, HG, about YOUR carbon copy responses, should I stand up each time you post?


                • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

                  It may well be a pathetic situation and I don’t care if you call it that.

                  Labor had eleven years under Howard to stew in the juices of its unfulfilled ambitions and reform itself and what did we get? Rudd followed by Gillard! As useless a pair of leaders as we’ll ever see. Poll watchers to the end the pair of them. And your contention is that a few years of Abbott are going to change that because?

                  Oppositions often don’t change their stripes. Look at Abbott wearing Howard’s. maybe they don’t get lobbied or engaged on matters of policy nearly enough to get the sense they need of what the electorate really wants. Who’s to say talking to Labor in government, and especially in an election year, isn’t the better way to make your point? Or if not, because I think we both know they’ve not been listening, then how do they get new blood into the party by losing seats? Either way I think influencing policy is more likely on my trajectory than yours.

                  Trying to water down Abbott’s intentions by prevaricating as to whether he’d control the Senate is below your dignity. I’ve had few things to say about it myself, but they all hinge on the fact that he won’t work with the Greens so unless we can foresee a fight emerging out those circumstances that he’s likely to lose government over then it’s all so much crystal ball gazing with most of the outcomes I’ve already mentioned still likely.

                  I would however like to append a question to my previous post. Do you think it would make any difference to what you’ve been calling faux Labor if there was a leadership change coming up to the election? In other words is it just Gillard, is ir policy or are you unable to make the distinction at this stage?

                  I think that if you don’t and if we’re really talking about how best to reform Labor then you ought to be able to see that the lesser of two evils argument has a certain validity. That despite your emotional inclinations putting ideology ahead of outcomes is deeply flawed, as it always has been and always will be.


                  • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

                    In the church of lesser evils HG.
                    Rudd V Gillard? Result?
                    Rudd V Abbott? Result?
                    Gillard V Abbott 2? Well we know it wont be Rudd.
                    Despite what you say, he was a far better leader and PM than Gillard, and was not beholding to unelected shit peddlers, with more abusive power than Labors allies in government.

                    My main point was not arguing that Abbott will change his spots.I am arguing that if he does not he will be ditched.Creating a fear on your imaginings which plays into the faux Labor trolls who are happy to be run by union cock snaps, is a flawed game.

                    “Do you think it would make any difference to what you’ve been calling faux Labor if there was a leadership change coming up to the election? In other words is it just Gillard, is ir policy or are you unable to make the distinction at this stage?”

                    Please do not ask this shit agin nothing has changed.
                    Gillard and who and represents must go if Labor are to reverse their polls and elctability.
                    Some of their policies suck big time.
                    They would need to go to.
                    And no, I think it is way to late for a change to GUARANTEE a win for Labor.
                    Given that the caucus support her and what she stands for I would not trust this lot to reform at any scale except superficially.
                    So Labor are gone,Gillard is gone.And hopefully all who support a dead headed NSW right run union bullied ALP, are also gone.
                    Abbott does not scare me like he scares you.

                    Your turn now.
                    Start singing the praises of alternatives and start FAIRLY analysing and acknowledging the real the destruction of Labor under Gillard.


                    • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

                      “Gillard and who she”

                      I’m sure you can suss out the spelling errors.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

                      I agree with you that Labor’s probably screwed under Gillard, but I see you’re still deaf, blind and ignorant when it comes to recognising that a having a friend who compromises with the enemy on a few points is better than having an enemy who’s going to head in the opposite direction all the way.

                      Rudd’s gone and probably for the better now. I agree he was better than Gillard on many policy points, but he just couldn’t handle the job.

                      Crean may try.

                      Apart from that what’s so wrong with the unions? One unionist that you don’t like in the AWU shouldn’t be enough to condemn the whole movement.

                      In answer to your question about the alternatives I preempted it earlier. So I”ll leave you with the same answer you gave me, nothing has changed. Abbott still won’t work with the Greens in a month of Sundays, and far fewer people will suffer as much under Labor and/or the Greens than under Abbott. The realities are that this time around the Greens will continue to be part of a minority at best so the only way really open to us involves persuading Labor in some form or another to reform itself ASAP.


                    • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

                      Gillard baaaad!

                      HG, don’t you dare concede that Gillard is a useless leader.

                      And certain it is that many still think Gillard is the one, the leader of choice.

                      And many more prefer her to Abbott, thank you very much.


              • Marilyn April 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

                But what is Gillard doing for any of those minority groups that is any good.

                You can only claim Abbott will be treating them worse if Gillard is treating them well.


                • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

                  She is targeting unis to fund her Gonski plan now.
                  She and Howes bosum budy Emerson,know full well unis are loaded up with foreign students.Easy pickings.
                  More of the pick on the other races again.

                  457 visas for coloured folk.
                  See the pattern?

                  I cannot wait to find out Paul Howes has a few 457 visa workers hidden away in his administration.


                • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

                  No that’s simply wrong on the facts. Even a slave would tell you that a master who feeds them is better than one who beats them.


                  • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm #

                    Parables,fables and myths can’t save her.She is pissing in the slaves drinking water, telling us the bloke next door will flog us if we escape.
                    Why be a slave in the first place?And she is certainly not my ‘master’.


                    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

                      That may be so, but you’re carrying the analogy further that it probably needs to be taken. You’re neglecting to tell us that when the slave owner nest door is already taking pot shots at you over the fence any sensible slave avoids taking that particular escape route.

                      The rest is simply out of context, cheap, and you should know it!


  23. paul walter April 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    Abbott Gillard’s best assett?
    At last, some sense from from Hydro.


    • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

      Read it again, dufus.
      This time NOT hanging upside down in your cave.


    • helvityni April 13, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

      Abbott does not exist for me, but I have to say I feel sorry for Turnbull. He should leave the Coalition and turn into an Independent. How can an intelligent man take orders from Abbott.


      • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

        Perhaps he could join Gillard.
        Oh wait most of the best people just get sacked and sent to the back bench, or resign outright.Or sit in wait for political annihilation.
        Malcolm might be better than Abbott,But its not exactly a big challenge.
        Mal is also a Lib and has allegedly dirty fingers via the Grech affair.
        I sense he may actually have been stitched up from within,to take him off Minchins list of potential leaders.


        • Marilyn April 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

          Not allegedly dirty fingers in the Grech affair, Grech was his stooge for years.


          • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm #

            Actually I put ‘allegedly’ in right at the end.
            I shouldn’t have bothered, it seems.


      • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

        Because it is hang in there as a shadow minister or get out completely. Turnbull must make his move soon, or be sentenced to another three years of Opposition as Abbott fails again.

        He has failed in just about everything else he has ever tried; he will do it again if he is allowed to continue “leading”.

        Gillard baaaaad!


  24. Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    NO REPLY Button AGAIN!
    @hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

    “having a friend who compromises with the enemy on a few points is better than having an enemy who’s going to head in the opposite direction all the way”

    You have never heard of the enemy within.Gillard is heading right.
    Lets stop this shit.
    You are a flat out Gillard apologist who denies she has wrecked Labor.

    You would have to be the most irritating thing since a grass seed wedged in a urethra.

    You’re the one who’s blind deaf and ignorant.

    You’ve used every deceptive /avoidance tactic possible to protect the most abysmal example of a Labor govt since their inception.
    No other ALP govt has gone to 180 degree positions on so many core principles in such a short time. In history.
    “Apart from that what’s so wrong with the unions? One unionist that you don’t like in the AWU shouldn’t be enough to condemn the whole movement.”
    Unions are great.In the workplace.Helping workers.Not in caucus running govt.
    I have been a member of several unions,including the one Howes is poisooning.And the AMWU, PKIU,CSPU.
    So don’t question my loyalty.
    When an institution ignores it’s grass roots it has failed.
    ALP has.
    Howes has by morphing into a proxy politician with delusions of grandeur.
    The PM has insulted the public and diluted her loyalty to suit her needs.

    We will see if the oil and water can mix after the election.There are plenty of surfactants available.Like I have said, if you think Howes can and will work with the greens again, your dreaming.
    There are two reasons Labor won’t work with the greens after the election.
    2=Labor who?



    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

      I don’t deny that Gillard has taken Labor in a worse direction than Rudd had. I contest that this is still not as bad as Abbott would be.

      Write that out 100 times by sunrise etc……

      The you can choke on the fact that I don’t give a rat’s about Gillard Howes and all of that crap, even if I do sympathise with you over the desertion of roots issue etc…

      We don’t need to wait for the election to see whether Abbott can work with the Greens. It’s a proven FACT. If he had’ve been able to do so he might even have taken office at the last election, (on the back of that dreadful “stop the boats” slogan no less), What the hell have YOU found yourself being an apologist for?

      This is how hate has addled you mind. Step Back! Step Back Hypo it’s not too late…..


      • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

        Sur-FACT-ant HG, surfactant.
        Wetting agent.

        Even DQ is on board.
        Gillard and faux Labor are bad news.


        • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

          I suspect DQ’s more bored than on board after all of this 🙂


          • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

            There’s so many ways to construe that, and all of them seem applicable.


          • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

            I don’t spend every waking hour wondering what to write on a blog, no matter how excellent it may be.

            But I am certainly bored with the Hypo sheep bleat “Gillard baaaaad! in every second post.

            It’s like Abbott repeating his Big Lie “this is an incompetent government” at every opportunity when he isn’t saying “Stop the Boats Stop the Waste Stop the Tax Stop the Boats (etc etc etc)”

            Enough to bore a hole through wood.


            • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

              Parts of the govt are competent. Not the parts aligned with Gillard.
              but leadership or lack thereof matters.
              This Gillard Labor is a hoax.A rip off.A scam.
              Abbott and the Libs are as low arse as they are meant to be.
              Dishonesty,deception etc are not the attributes required in a GOOD govt.
              This one swims in them.
              Howes runs it.And he is a loose UNIT.
              And for you to claim you only use one pseudonym is the cake taker,buddy.

              I am certain you are.


              • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

                Ok, what are your guesses about my supposed pseudonyms? Several guesses have already been laughed out of court. Have a few more! I’m bored enough to ask, it should give us all a giggle.

                I just warn you in advance that I have no others. None, Nil, Nada.

                I’ll lay odds you have plenty; you’ve probably been thrown out of every blog in town. LOL


                • Hypocritophobe April 14, 2013 at 12:00 am #

                  Funny fella.
                  Sprung here,sprung there.

                  Liars keep lying and you have bullshit form, big time.
                  You are one the ABCs most prolific posters.You multi ID post everywhere, including Ellis.
                  Your mega-profiles makes you an internet slapper.


                  • doug quixote April 14, 2013 at 10:24 am #

                    Plenty of waffly accusation : Where’s the allegation, where’s the charge Hypocrite?

                    You are the one who is deceptive and duplicitous. Your waffly accusations and innuendo do you no credit.

                    You take what you do routinely and project it onto me.

                    I call bullshit.

                    I call you Hypocrite.


                    • Hypocritophobe April 14, 2013 at 10:45 am #

                      U huh


                    • doug quixote April 14, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

                      Pathetic Hypocrite.


    • doug quixote April 13, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

      Gillard baaaaad!

      You Loyal? Loyal to what? You are a sometime Green with a Messiah Complex!

      Loyal to your own obsessive hatred of Gillard, perhaps.


      • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2013 at 7:20 pm #

        Bless you my son.
        That’s a nasty boil on your pecker.
        But despite the Christian biblical history of Judas, the coins and the crowing, “my” healing guidelines do not apply to modern day rooster wrestlers.
        Try to give it a day off and a good rinse with hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate.
        I don’t hate Gillard.That’s Pickerings and Jones’ job.
        I just abhor everything she has done to Labor with her union side kicks.
        I despise the way she has used race as a political ploy, and refugees to bolster her ego.And fling bullshit to stay in power week to week.
        What’s to hate?

        But heck ‘you decide who you vote for and under what circumstance you vote for them’.In your case any circumstance is good enough.


  25. Hypocritophobe April 15, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    When some of these poor people can find a boat they may also flee towards us.
    No doubt they will be seen as invaders as well.(76% women and children)


    and just this weekend



    • hudsongodfrey April 15, 2013 at 10:21 am #

      Yes I agree some probably will, But frankly the better solution might be to put aside the West’s bullshit over their “interests” in the region and end the civil war as quickly as we can so that at least some of those people can return to or rebuild their former homes.

      This seems also to represent a compelling argument that whereas nobody in the past has ever wanted to enter into any nation’s internal conflicts, because they are so messy to resolve, we now have to take some kind of stance if only on provisioning one side, because of the problems that these large numbers of displaced persons do create.


    • Marilyn April 15, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

      Last night I watched the download of Frontline under cover in Syria. It was horrendous in the brutality and reality of the deaths and destruction and we can bet our lives that anyone who came here on boats via Syria would be jailed under Gillards racist scheme as queue jumpers.


      • Hypocritophobe April 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

        No-one from the West is interested in ending the conflict in Syria.
        Syria and the N Korea issues have showed the Yanks to be what they are.Mouth machines.And given the UN is sitting on its hands it’s obvious the American intelligence agencies and Israel are calling the shots there as well.
        Tamil and Hazara situation all over again.


  26. Marilyn April 16, 2013 at 6:04 am #

    I wonder if Doug would think Docos. were dreadful and merely an opinion if they agreed with him?

    Oliver Stone didn’t make a 10 hour opinion piece, he made a 10 hour doco with archival footage and interviews spanning the period WW11 to today.



  1. The 60th Down Under Feminists Carnival | the news with nipples - May 4, 2013

    […] and society On the politics of criminalising the persecuted by Jennifer at No Place For Sheep. I am not a widget: privatisation of social services by El Gibbs […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: