How can Turnbull make refugees second-class citizens in another sovereign state?

31 Oct

second_class

The Turnbull government, no doubt believing it hasn’t yet done enough to convince the Hansonites they should vote for it, has now decided to create a secondary class of citizens by restricting the movements of refugees from Manus and Nauru, should they be settled in third countries. While everyone else in those third countries is free to apply for a visa to visit Australia, refugees are not.

The reason for this discrimination is that they arrived in Australia seeking asylum on a boat.

I can barely get my head around this much insanity.

This creation of second-class citizens does not, both Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull assure us, contravene any domestic or international law, and it does not breach our responsibilities to the Refugee Convention.

I confess myself at a complete loss. I do not understand how this can possibly be the case. The refugees have committed no crime. Their status has been awarded to them by the UNHCR. Yet Australia can, apparently with no legal ramifications whatsoever, cast them as second class citizens of another sovereign nation by refusing them the same freedom of movement other citizens of that nation enjoy.

The New Zealand Prime Minister has already declined to collude with this plan, declaring that his government will not co-operate in creating a secondary class of New Zealand citizens whose movements are restricted by Australia. Surely what Australia is proposing is contrary to every democratic principle?

And how can any country that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention co-operate with the Australian government’s restriction on the free movement of potential citizens who have committed no crime?

Any ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

111 Responses to “How can Turnbull make refugees second-class citizens in another sovereign state?”

  1. Fiona October 31, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

    One small potential comfort: no government can entrench legislation i.e., no government can bind a future government.

    The legislation fizza contemplates – to his eternal shame and (from an atheist) damnation – will not bind any future government prepared to overturn it.

    I also think it is eminently challengeable in the High Court. Preferably before canetoad gets his unlovely arse on the judicial bench.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jennifer Wilson October 31, 2016 at 7:25 pm #

      Canetoad?

      Like

      • Fiona October 31, 2016 at 8:04 pm #

        gorgeous georgie brandis

        He looks exactly like Toad of Toad Hall, and given he’s from Queensland . . .

        Liked by 2 people

    • Arthur Baker October 31, 2016 at 8:37 pm #

      I think a High Court challenge would fail. A noted refugee advocate said on tonight’s 7.30 Report (unless I heard it wrongly, and I don’t think I did) that constitutionally it would pass the test because it’s simply a matter of regulating who enters this country, which a federal government is entitled to do.

      I have a recording of it, so I’ll copy down his exact words later.

      Liked by 1 person

      • doug quixote October 31, 2016 at 11:34 pm #

        Just so.

        It is still ludicrous legislation, both unnecessary and provocative.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:51 am #

          I’m interested to see which country has agreed to accept a class of restricted citizens, & on what terms. US, in exchange for some massive base in Darwin?

          Like

      • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:43 am #

        Doesn’t there have to be a reason to deny people entry, Arthur?

        Like

        • Arthur Baker November 1, 2016 at 8:36 am #

          Yep. There does. And they will have one – this law, passed in the parliament, and probably backed by the ALP. In the unlikely event that this law doesn’t get through the parliament, they’ll fall back on Minister’s discretion, and they won’t be telling you the reason.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. diannaart October 31, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

    Didn’t we spend a bucket load on our “border personnel”?

    Border Control

    Navy

    Air Force

    Coast Guard

    Nazi Surfers for hire

    Surely any of these can stop smugglers?

    How the fuck does banning maritime refugees from setting foot on land-stolen-by-BritishImperialists-from-FirstNationpeople AKA Australia, stop smugglers?

    I guess this means Trump will win the election.

    I got nothing else.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jennifer Wilson October 31, 2016 at 7:25 pm #

      I think there’s a good chance Trump will win, as emails are far more criminal than anything he does. (irony font)

      Like

      • paul walter. October 31, 2016 at 11:16 pm #

        He may well be elected, If not, the real icing on the cake, elimination of Republican and Tea Party control of Senate and Congress may fail, which makes for four more years of gridlock. The Republicans are threatening to continue the refusal of Supreme Court appointments for fear of a less conservative bench, for example.

        Liked by 1 person

    • paul walter. October 31, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

      Did you catch tonight’s Media Watch on this. If not, watch it for a laugh and pat yourself on the back.

      Liked by 1 person

      • diannaart November 1, 2016 at 11:29 am #

        I’ll check it out now, Paul.

        Like

        • diannaart November 1, 2016 at 11:49 am #

          I was only stating the bleeding obvious, now I am seething about taxpayer funded social media/propaganda for Border “Control”.

          Anyway, I think I spotted some hexagonal shapes in the tree tops overhead, am off to take picture and ink in results…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

            Much better way to spend your morning, diannart

            Liked by 1 person

          • paul walter. November 2, 2016 at 12:24 am #

            Ave Marie Celeste.

            Like

            • diannaart November 2, 2016 at 11:30 am #

              The Marie Celeste? If memory serves, that ship was lost in the Atlantic not the Bermuda Triangle.

              Like

  3. helvityni October 31, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

    When we have a born-to-rule as our top dog, we are all second class, or mere mongrels…

    I’ll not be surprised any more at anything this fizza government will dish us.
    I never thought that Australia would sink this low.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Fiona October 31, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

      Neither did I, Helvi. Especially as I thought hoWARd had brought us to the lowest possible.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jennifer Wilson October 31, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

      I don’t know where this will end, Helvi. I think I’d like to live in Iceland.

      Like

      • helvityni October 31, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

        Iceland sounds inviting, there’s some kind of Rebel (?)party keeping eye on things…I love the idea of Rebels ruling the roost.

        Years ago when my kids were little I met my one and only Icelander family, a young couple with one child.
        They both had jobs, the boy went to pre-school, they lived in the already then trendy Balmain, water views and parks…they could not settle and went back to ice and snow… 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:42 am #

          It’s the Pirate Party. They did pretty well. They want to give the country back to the people.
          Theres some good telly from Iceland as well.

          Like

  4. Marilyn October 31, 2016 at 7:08 pm #

    To date each of the whole 2125 victims selected at random as hostages has cost taxpayers $4.7 million to keep out so we could save $4,000 on a court case if needed. Of course so far 1567 of them are actually refugees who could have been supported here for 188 years on full pension and we wouldn’t have noticed.

    Turnbull is a racist, lying cunt and I do not apologise for my language.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Fiona October 31, 2016 at 7:10 pm #

      Marilyn,

      It is truly disgusting, and your language is warranted.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer Wilson October 31, 2016 at 7:23 pm #

      No apologies needed, Marilyn.

      Like

    • Arthur Baker October 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm #

      So far Turntable and Dutton have achieved precisely what they obviously set out to do: (a) send the ALP into a state of internal strife (although after a while even the so-called “left wing” of the ALP will back down and announce they’re fully in synch with the Coalition, yet again); (b) distract everyone’s attention from the crap job they are making of running the country, particularly Medicine-Ball-Head Brandis as first law officer; and (c) send out a message to the controlling right wing of their own party saying, look, strong leadership on an issue dear to your hearts!

      Three out of three so far. Meanwhile, their utterly appalling government rolls on in the background while everyone screams and shouts about today’s talking point, their latest asylum seeker atrocity. Mission accomplished. They do this all the time on asylum seeker policy. They’ve been doing it for 20 years. If you want to distract attention away from your other failures and inadequacies, bash a refugee or two. Works every time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:45 am #

        The only consolation is that they will very soon lose refugees as a distraction, unless they start hanging them in the town squares.

        Like

        • paul walter. November 2, 2016 at 12:26 am #

          For gods sake Jennifer, don’t encourage them!

          Like

    • doug quixote October 31, 2016 at 11:37 pm #

      I agree.

      Like

  5. paul walter. October 31, 2016 at 11:33 pm #

    Personally I am glad Labor has finally blown the whistle, this latest proposal is gross, but totally in conformity with the government’s attitude toward a carousel of people who cant fight back both in and outside of this country. I hope they have the backbone to stick to their guns.

    I look at the politicians faces and I think it is corrosive of the politicians themselves. I was just watching Turnbull on teev, who not so long ago heavily criticised Hanson, looking most uncomfortable when ask about Hanson’s emphatic support for the new initiative. Why would it not be so, when many of the rest of us are uncomfortable with asylum seeker policy?

    Of course, the classic situation is emerging where Dutton spiels the old trick of saying Labor is divided on the issue, meaning they have less appetite for cruelty than their Tory confrateres and Hanson bangs on about encouraging people smugglers.

    But it is sad this, when even the New Zealanders are laughing at us.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Marilyn November 1, 2016 at 1:08 am #

      Thing is that international laws and treaties are not fucking partisan crap, they are done and lodged by the Commonwealth of Australia after being examined by the joint treaties committee.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:53 am #

        The other thing is, international laws have no legs unless someone takes the matter to the Hague.
        We have no business being signatories to the RC.

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 6:49 am #

      It’s only a matter of months since Turnbull loudly proclaimed that Hanson was not welcome in the parliament.
      Honestly, I’d almost prefer Abbott. They’re both sanctimonious pieces of shite.

      Like

      • doug quixote November 1, 2016 at 8:51 am #

        Be careful what you wish for, Guinevere.

        Tony Redux is a distinct possibility in the revolving door of PMship.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 12:00 pm #

          If that happens, politics will have become the playground of the insane.

          Like

      • helvityni November 1, 2016 at 9:55 am #

        Tony was/is predictable, the other one is a sneaky, insecure narcissist, TOTALLY lacking emotional intelligence and good judgement…
        Keating had some amusing observations about him…

        Liked by 1 person

      • helvityni November 1, 2016 at 10:19 am #

        I remember when Keating said something cutting ,but funny, about Hewson , he was the first one to chuckle.

        Mal in the same situation would not laugh, he would also NOT forget, there would be a pay-back time…

        Liked by 1 person

  6. samjandwich November 1, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

    Well… I’m glad Bill Shorten came out against this move. And it’s funny because I have a lot of trouble taking the ludicrous conservative fringe seriously, but it would seem they’ve infiltrated our democracy to such an extent that we now have to.

    Liked by 1 person

    • diannaart November 1, 2016 at 1:43 pm #

      I agree. Its rather Orwellian, the effort to take the likes of Cory Bernardi or Barnaby Joyce seriously enough, simply because they hold some power.

      I won’t be giving up sniggering behind closed doors – at least I don’t have one of those ‘smart’ TV’s.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Arthur Baker November 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm #

      Shorten has been thoroughly and comprehensively wedged. Which was Turnbull’s primary intention.

      Liked by 1 person

      • paul walter. November 1, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

        Not so sure. Critical mass with the public must be close now.

        I have to hope that the public has seen enough of the likes of Dutton and Labor has picked the long awaited right moment to seize the initiative and disassociate from the valorisation of cruelty implicit in the Coalition’s approach.

        And even if it is not, they can at least join others who have not let the worst of it go unremarked upon. If an easier conscience has a high price, so be it, would we not rather be able to live with ourselves?

        Liked by 1 person

        • helvityni November 1, 2016 at 4:42 pm #

          ” If an easier conscience has a high price, so be it, would we not rather be able to live with ourselves?”

          In my books that’s the a good way to live, that was imprinted on us as kids…we was Lutheran, and that’s what I have kept from my mum’s/ my nations religion…

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 4:49 pm #

          Politicians don’t think that way, PW. They can live with any foul deed if it gives them power.

          Like

          • Arthur Baker November 1, 2016 at 5:29 pm #

            Agreed, Jennifer. Their primary reason for being in politics is not to be in parliament (although the parliamentary salary, superannuation, expenses and other benefits are big big motivators). Their primary reason for being in politics is to be in government because, as someone (I can’t remember who) said a while back, “being in opposition sucks”.

            In government they can impose their ideologies on the country, as long as they can get their crap through the senate. In opposition they can’t. That’s why they will perennially crap all over utterly powerless people such as asylum seekers – anything to gain and retain power. That’s the kind of people they are – ideological bullies. And that’s the kind of people we continue to re-elect.

            Like

            • doug quixote November 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm #

              It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected.

              Least of evils is the best we can hope for.

              Like

        • Havana Liedown November 1, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

          Like

          • doug quixote November 1, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

            Currently under contract to Trump; the Liberal Party have hired him to replace Christopher Pyne.

            Like

      • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm #

        Yes, I agree, Arthur.

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson November 1, 2016 at 4:46 pm #

      We do have to, Sam. And I hope Shorten sticks to his guns – he did leave an opening to support the govt.

      Like

  7. diannaart November 1, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

    I’m sure this has been said before, but hollow-man Turnbull in his efforts to claim the prime ministership is like the old joke about the dog chasing a car, now that’s he’s got it, he doesn’t know what to do with it.

    Turnbucks is a reportedly successful businessman, apparently the highest high to which one can aspire (although I can think of many artists, scientists and others for whom power is not the goal, as on a far higher plane of evolution).

    Part of my dismay is that not only is Turnbull worse than we first projected, but he is far, far more dismal; there is no end to his duplicity, spinelessness and lack of conviction.

    I can almost see why some would prefer Abbott, at least he admitted he is a liar.

    Liked by 1 person

    • samjandwich November 2, 2016 at 10:37 am #

      dianaart, you just reminded me of a recent Q&A where the notion was brought up that Kim Beazley is the best PM we never had.

      Again I naturally blame Howard for everything, but since, I guess it was the Tampa affair, politics in Australia has been entirely characterised by an unprincipled approach of “whatever it takes to stay in power”… with perhaps enough flashes of inspiration for over-optimistic people like me to maintain some hope.

      I’m afraid that for me though this has been the final Turnbull straw.

      http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/qa-recap-the-best-prime-minister-we-never-had-and-why-we-never-got-him-20161024-gs9oms.html

      Like

      • samjandwich November 2, 2016 at 11:16 am #

        Ooooh just saw an interesting/frightening headline: “Turnbull trails Bishop as preferred PM”.

        Like

        • diannaart November 2, 2016 at 11:33 am #

          Never thought I’d say this but if I was forced to choose between Julie Bishop and Turnbull a la Clinton/Trump, I would choose Bishop.

          Yes, that is frightening, we live in frightening times.

          Like

          • Havana Liedown November 2, 2016 at 1:30 pm #

            Your wish shall be granted, within six months. But then you probably wished for Turnbull and see how that worked out.

            Bishop should have double-crossed Turnbull at the time of the leadership spill. She at least has political smarts, and will have been galvanised by his woeful performance and weak campaigning. He even made Shorten look almost like a leader in comparison! The clock is ticking on Turnbull. I was at a function recently where he bored hundreds of party members and volunteers into a coma with a typically overlong speech, then pissed off quickly so as not to endure a non-mobbing, in contrast to his predecessor.

            Like

            • diannaart November 2, 2016 at 2:14 pm #

              I wished for an end to LNP governance.

              Here’s the deal, I won’t make assumptions about you, if you don’t make assumptions about me.

              Like

        • doug quixote November 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

          Ha! Everybody’s loyal deputy as PM! Is it “Yes Prime Minister”?

          Like

          • Havana Liedown November 4, 2016 at 10:12 am #

            In about February.

            Like

            • doug quixote November 4, 2016 at 2:36 pm #

              Over Abbott’s and Morrison’s dead bodies. 🙂

              Like

              • allthumbs November 4, 2016 at 8:08 pm #

                Doug, I think it was Havana who insisted that Abbott was going to win the last election with an increased majority because Turnbull was in no way a danger to Abbotts leadership as an usurper.

                The Libs would never make the same mistakes the ALP did in regards to Leadership change etc etc.

                Like

                • Havana Liedown November 11, 2016 at 9:23 am #

                  Turnbull was a hopeless opposition leader – and a hopeless PM. Abbott would have campaigned more strongly and would have lost less seats.

                  Like

      • diannaart November 2, 2016 at 11:35 am #

        As for Beeeeezley – if memory serves, did he not support HowHard on the children overboard great lie?

        Like

        • Havana Liedown November 2, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

          Just about every boat was sabotaged when our Navy was nearby. A prime example:

          “Childers’ boarding party arrived aboard SIEV 36 at 06:15. Shortly after, the passengers found the notice, and, assuming that they would be sent back to Indonesia, became agitated. Salt was poured into the boat’s diesel engine, stalling it, and one of the petrol canisters was spread on the deck. Reinforcements were sent from Childers to restore control, and boarded shortly before the petrol was ignited; the resulting explosion tore the boat apart. RHIBs from the two patrol boats focused on recovering the nine Australian Defence Force personnel first, then began recovering others. Five passengers were killed, and many of the survivors were heavily burned; the two patrol boats sailed to the tanker Front Puffin, from where the wounded were heli-lifted to hospitals ashore.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIEV_36

          Like

          • Marilyn November 2, 2016 at 10:03 pm #

            What is your point, these were all lies invented by the navy, no refugees ever sabotaged anything for the simple reason they wanted to be safe and most couldn’t swim.

            Like

            • Havana Liedown November 4, 2016 at 10:21 am #

              I’m “a brainless cunt” because:

              So-called “refugees” had (thanks OSB!) the means to fly into Indonesia, ditch their documentation and arrange passage to Christmas Island and seek asylum, happily hopping onto the welfare gravy train?

              The majority of Australians agree – so they must be racist cruel brainless cunts too.

              Those that advocate open borders just want to wreck the host nation with an influx of unproductive parasites that have incompatible cultural practices.

              It’s over. Labor fucked themselves by letting 50,000 blowins into the country in 2007-2013.

              The chancers who set off for our shores post-September 2013 have no sympathy from the majority of Australians.

              We will never solve the problems of the third world, even if we let one million here, it will just reduce our living standards.

              Oh, and I’m a brainless cunt because I believe in an immigration system, passports, visas, border control and customs. Guilty as charged.

              Like

              • Arthur Baker November 4, 2016 at 1:35 pm #

                1. Firstly I don’t have any time for personal abuse (e.g. “brainless cunt”). It’s counterproductive and I’m not sure why the host of this blog doesn’t delete comments which contain personal abuse. To me, you are a fellow human with a point of view. I have points of view too, which I will express civilly. Here they are.

                The “chancers” (I prefer to call them asylum seekers) you refer to arrived here legally. No matter how many times Turnbull, Dutton, Morrison and co repeat their “arriving illegally by boat” mantra, it doesn’t make it true. Robert Menzies signed us up to the UN Refugee Convention in 1954, and 62 years on, we’re still signatories.

                Under that Convention, there has always been a formal process to separate those who qualify as refugees from those who do not. In the good old days, Australia applied that process properly and gave the protection we had thereby promised to those who qualified. Historically, around 85-90 percent were found to qualify. The other 10-15 percent included some “chancers” who were refused protection, but also some who were deemed to need “complementary protection” – they didn’t qualify under the quite restrictive terms of the Convention, but were still deemed to be under considerable risk if they returned whence they had fled.

                The UN Refugee Convention is not “an immigration system”. It is quite separate from your “immigration system”. It is an escape system. It was created after the second world war to provide an emergency escape mechanism for those who had no other options, and to prevent the recurrence of certain events of the 1930s and 1940s – largely, boatloads of Jewish refugees from Germany and elsewhere, being forced to return to their eventual deaths because no country would take them in.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Arthur Baker November 4, 2016 at 1:48 pm #

                2. What happens now? Australia, a country which used to honour its commitment under the UN Refugee Convention, now twists and turns and does everything in its power to AVOID honouring its commitment.

                Why, one might ask? I suggest that political opportunism is the major reason, but the vanity of our politicians is also a driver. Withdrawing from the UN Refugee Convention is a very easy process. You only have to write a letter to the UN then wait 12 months and you’re out. No legislation needed, no debates in the UN Security Council or General Assembly. Just tell them and you’re out.

                So why has every Australian government since Menzies not even thought of withdrawal, and in particular the governments of Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Abbott and now Turnbull, all of whom have seemed hell bent on avoiding their responsibilities? If it’s that easy, why not do it?

                I suggest it’s because (a) from the Liberals’ point of view it’s a convenient stick with which to perennially whack Labor (b) from Labor’s point of view they’re so sick of being whacked with that stick that they just want it to go away at any cost, with minimal discussion, and (c) no politician of either major party wants to go down in the history books as the Prime Minister or Immigration Minister who triggered the unravelling of the best emergency escape system for persecuted people ever devised. Basically, they’re vain. And their vanity leads them to prefer the current hypocrisy, in which they say one thing (“we’re fully committed to our international obligations” blah blah blah) and do entirely the opposite (devising strategy after strategy to avoid legal obligations).

                Liked by 1 person

              • Arthur Baker November 4, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

                3. What could they have done instead of their current policies? Well they’ve been banging on for about 20 years about so-called “regional solutions”, but so far have barely made any genuine moves towards one other than the utterly toothless Bali Process.

                “Regional solutions”, to LNP and ALP alike, these days consist of leaving people to rot on Manus and Nauru and making not even a pretence of processing (legal, I remind you) asylum claims.

                How about global solutions? The refugee problem is one of those worldwide wicked problems which always seems to defy solution, and as you correctly say, taking in a million here would not solve the problem, and cause us heaps of problems.

                But has any Australian government even made a move towards discussing the problem with the rest of the world? We had two years recently on the UN Security Council, and both Labor and LNP had time in government during that period, but did any Australian even so much as raise that topic at the top table of worldwide diplomacy. Not that I’m aware. That would have been a great time to show Australian leadership, but our representatives at the UN uttered not a peep. Despite the fact that at least some of the current unprecedented total of 65 million displaced persons around the world (the most since the second world war) are the fault of our participation in illegal wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, anyone?).

                Those of us who support the rights of people to come to Australia and claim asylum under existing international law are simply sick to the back teeth of the most vulnerable people in the world being used as disposable pawns in some macabre game of political in-fighting.

                Australia wasn’t like this, only a couple of decades ago. Back then, we stood up and did what we promised to do, namely assess the claims of those who arrived responding to our standing invitation.

                These days, we not only break our promise but refuse to do the honourable thing and withdraw from that promise, meanwhile demonising those who have responded to the promise. Time to end the hypocrisy. Preferably, engage sincerely with the rest of the world in tackling one of the greatest problems facing humanity now. But if we can’t do that, at least have the guts to stand up and frankly say we can’t be signatories any more. The current hypocrisy is not only disingenuous but also gutless in the extreme. It shames Australia, and one day that shame will be properly acknowledged.

                Liked by 1 person

                • doug quixote November 4, 2016 at 2:30 pm #

                  Nice try at reason without abuse, Arthur.

                  Marilyn is Marilyn: Tourette’s syndrome is part of the package.

                  Save your breath as regards Havana. She has her set of rightist views and you have no hope of getting that square peg into the round hole.

                  Send her up, or abuse her – it saves time and column space.

                  Like

                  • Arthur Baker November 4, 2016 at 4:06 pm #

                    Thanks Doug.

                    I’ve encountered Marilyn in numerous other forums. I can disregard the Tourette’s, as you call it, because she is also one of the most meticulous researchers of refugee issues and history and statistics in this country. Refugee politics is my number one subject, and I’ve been centrally involved in it for more than a decade and a half – but I’ve learned heaps and discovered many previously unknown sources from her writings about this issue. I long since learned to filter out the abuse and take only the kernel of wisdom, which is substantial. I am much the wiser for it, and owe her a debt of gratitude.

                    I’d prefer to continue addressing Havana, and those who share her views, with polite rationality, if you don’t mind. Or even if you do mind, actually. Send-ups and abuse can be tremendously entertaining and personally satisfying, but neither of them are remotely likely to get us anywhere in our struggle for justice for the most vulnerable people in the world – refugee children.

                    The people who have the power in this issue (politicians, mainly) may conceivably respond to a mild send-up (e.g. cartoonists may have some effect), but will simply refuse to engage with you if you abuse them. So I continue to hammer away at them with polite rationality.

                    Believe me, I deeply feel the futility of that approach sometimes (hey, my MP is Tony Abbott, who would barely respond if you shoved a pineapple, oh well never mind, you know what I mean).

                    But Confucius he say, man who sit on river bank long enough gets to see heads of enemies floating by. I live in hope. And I swore, years ago, never to let up in this struggle until they change their minds or I go to the Great Refugee Camp In The Sky.

                    Good to talk to you.

                    Like

                    • doug quixote November 4, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

                      I hope the riverbank is comfortable.

                      Like

                    • helvityni November 4, 2016 at 8:16 pm #

                      …I have been abused by Ms Havana on Ellis and other blogs, so I rather stay away from any blog that allows Havana to spout her ugliness…

                      I warned Jennifer earlier on….

                      Like

                    • Marilyn November 5, 2016 at 6:58 am #

                      I find those who ignore what I am saying but whinge about bad language to be tedious apologist bores.

                      What is worse in the minds of you fuck wits, a 5 year old kid being raped in one of our racist prisons and not being attended or me calling a racist arsehole a cunt.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson November 5, 2016 at 7:01 am #

                      I’m with Marilyn

                      Like

                    • diannaart November 5, 2016 at 10:12 am #

                      Marilyn

                      I support your priorities.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Arthur Baker November 5, 2016 at 10:54 am #

                      I support Marilyn’s priorities also. I hope no-one doubted that. I wouldn’t give a stuff if every second word were a swear word. But pragmatically, abusing people who don’t agree with us isn’t a particularly efficient way to win this (or any) battle.

                      Believe me, I get tired of being polite to fuckwits too. Very tired – I’ve been involved for nearly two decades. But if we’re ever going to get justice for refugees in this country (and what else is this all about, if not that?), we’re going to have to win on two fronts: (a) in the courts and (b) by persuading a sod of a lot of people to change their minds.

                      In the courts, we need to win firstly to make the perpetrators stop committing their atrocities. That process is ongoing. And eventually we need to take those perpetrators to The Hague, as Marilyn herself wrote in a letter to the SMH the other day. To be heard in court you have to be polite to the court. The SMH will trash your letter if you write abuse. That’s the way it works.

                      The rest of it consists of changing a sod of a lot of minds – politicians, blog-commenters, people at meetings and rallies, my bloody meat-headed brother-in-law, anybody and everybody. You don’t do that by calling someone a brainless cunt.

                      I write to my MP from time to time. Not that I think I have a big fat chance of changing his mind, but while I address him as “Dear Mr Abbott”, at least he might read my letter and register it as a dissenting opinion.

                      If I wrote what I really thought (“Dear Racist Refugee-Abusing Imbecile Dickhead”), you know where my letter would be filed, and he’d probably toss any subsequent letters in the same direction.

                      If we want to win this struggle one day, and I hope I survive long enough to see certain people in The Hague on my TV), that’s the way we have to play it.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson November 5, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

                      Yes, I agree with you Arthur, that there are situations in which swearing will only get your pov shut down.

                      Marilyn knows when not to swear, and I have no problems with swearing on my blog, as you might have noticed!

                      When swearing becomes intensely personal and abusive here I usually delete it when I see it.

                      You are right as in there are many things I write when swearing would only detract from what I want to say.

                      Then there are times when it’s absolutely appropriate. Wisdom is knowing which, I guess.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Havana Liedown November 11, 2016 at 9:24 am #

                      Thanks for the courteous engagement Arthur. I will respond below when I have more time… off to see a client now. Have a great day.

                      Like

            • Havana Liedown November 4, 2016 at 10:22 am #

              And please let’s let quality “refugees” like Man Monis into the country.

              Like

              • doug quixote November 4, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

                Yes, Howard’s regime let him in, thinking he might act as a spy on the Islamists. Wrong again, as he usually was.

                Go have a Liedown.

                Like

              • Marilyn November 5, 2016 at 6:59 am #

                You really do need to have a lie down. 1 refugee out of 800,000 commits a shocking crime so we should exclude all others. NO wonder I swear.

                Like

              • diannaart November 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm #

                Australia wants its criminals born here, thank you very much!

                Like

  8. paul walter. November 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm #

    Not all folk agree that Marilyn suffers from Tourettes.

    Decoding, Havana reiterates a common view that asylum seekers are opportunists (perhaps in some cases true). Marilyn emphasises her rejection of this contention emphatically through the creative employ of the word cunt (eg, insensitive person), a word most others are happy to use at different times for different reasons, such as retrieval of the female body, although not from prison we hope, around here and other sites. Although usually not from myself, because I think its use usually displays a lack of imagination, although maybe my lack of its more frequent employ indicates in fact a lack of imagination on my part.

    My feeling is that Marilyn is reacting to what she as insensitivity from Havana, she feels that most refugees are genuinely needy, deserving cases. The figures on acceptance of asylum seekers tends to bear out that view.

    It is always enjoyable, a debate conducted without ill-will, with a respectful shared sense of a seeking after truth, a sense of common purpose demonstrated in the exchanges.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer Wilson November 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm #

      Sorry I’m not engaging, folks, I’m on the road. Back soon.

      Like

    • doug quixote November 4, 2016 at 7:09 pm #

      Marilyn’s Tourettes? It’s a joke, paul.

      As for cunt, I prefer to use it as a noun for a bodily organ possessed by one half of humanity. There are billions of them. 🙂

      As for asylum seekers, that is a vexed question with no good answers. But rightists like Havana with their rote cant (c-a-n-t) deserve instant dismissal.

      Like

      • Marilyn November 5, 2016 at 7:01 am #

        I grew up in the bush, swearing is part of life, get over it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • diannaart November 5, 2016 at 1:40 pm #

      Marilyn can speak most eloquently for herself.

      Wannabe shrink by any chance, Paul?

      However, I do commend your comment:”It is always enjoyable, a debate conducted without ill-will, with a respectful shared sense of a seeking after truth, a sense of common purpose demonstrated in the exchanges.”

      Always easier to talk the talk…

      Like

      • Marilyn November 6, 2016 at 8:15 pm #

        Paul and I have been mates for over a decade, I take his psycho babble with a grain of salt

        Like

        • diannaart November 6, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

          Thanks Marilyn. I did not know you go way back.

          I find him all rawther judgemental – but then Paul and I do not know each other well.

          What I do know is you can speak for yourself and you never give up on the plight of refugees

          Cheers

          Dianna

          Like

        • paul walter. November 6, 2016 at 10:22 pm #

          You should listen more closely.. I am a font for great wisdom.

          Thanks for nailing that bonehead on Pilger on my FB page. He is not a fool except to himself, as I’ve explained elsewhere.

          Not ANOTHER ad hominem from diannaart? What is this passive aggressive with you, when are you going to bury this sad grudge?

          Do you drink?

          Yes, Marilyn and I have been friends for a long time, the early two thousands at Kingston’s Web Diary. As Arthur Baker says , she is a limitless source of information on issues like refugees, mid eastern politics and as a former staffer in Canberra for a Senator, knows how our weird national politics goes also.

          Like

          • diannaart November 7, 2016 at 9:15 am #

            Paul

            Ad hominem? Passive aggressive? Followed by the question “do I drink?”

            As I stated to Marilyn I do not know you, nor you know me.

            Now take a few deep breaths and a little time out for some self-reflection.

            🙂

            Like

  9. paul walter. November 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm #

    Encouraging to see Labor appears to have rejected Dutton’s no citizenship move.

    Maybe the end of the beginning, if not the beginning of the end.

    Like

    • Arthur Baker November 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm #

      It’s not just a no citizenship move. It’s a no visa for any purpose move, a never set foot in Australia even as a tourist 50 years down the track move.

      “End of the beginning” of what? “Beginning of the end” of what?

      Like

  10. paul walter. November 8, 2016 at 6:08 pm #

    “Arthur Baker”,

    You’ll need to catch up with this evening’s “Drum” to discover just how wrong your proposition is.

    Like

    • doug quixote November 8, 2016 at 7:25 pm #

      No more ‘Mr Nice Guy’ for Shorten?

      Labor smell the scent of decay in this miserable incompetent government.

      To continue to frustrate them in government is now a time-honoured tactic. The refugee/asylum seeker issue is as good a place to start as any.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Arthur Baker November 10, 2016 at 11:39 am #

      “http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/labor-emboldened-to-break-ranks-on-refugee-policy/8007104?section=analysis”

      Mr Shorten has left himself wriggle room.

      If, as expected, the Government does strike a deal with another country to resettle refugees, he says he will reconsider the legislation.

      So, despite the ferocity of the Government’s attack, Labor is on relatively safe ground on an issue they have been vulnerable for years.

      Labor’s stance is a sham. They will go with the LNP’s proposed legislation after a while, just to make the issue go away. But of course the LNP will then soon think of another way to wedge Labor on this issue. So it won’t go away.

      You heard it here first.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Arthur Baker November 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

        Latest news is that Dutton won’t announce a resettlement deal with any third country until his “lifetime ban” legislation gets through parliament. So he’ll need Labor to back down, or he can point to the people he’s torturing on Manus and Nauru and say “Labor is now responsible for the torture”. For as long as it takes the lily-livered ALP to back down. And he’ll get away with it. Thoroughly wedged again, Labor.

        So they’ll back down, to make the topic go away. As if that will stop the LNP blaming them for “1200 deaths at sea”. You heard it here first.

        Liked by 1 person

        • diannaart November 11, 2016 at 4:11 pm #

          No.

          There has to be a limit.

          Labor must make amends for their past mistakes and stop any further exploitation of innocent people.

          Liked by 1 person

          • doug quixote November 11, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            Who?

            Last time I looked the LNP (aka Looters & Nutters Party) were in power.

            Like

            • paul walter. November 11, 2016 at 4:37 pm #

              Talk to them till you are blue in the face, doug.

              Labor is always the exclusive repository of all evil.

              Like

            • diannaart November 11, 2016 at 4:42 pm #

              As one of the ‘them’ Paul Walter referred to (I do have a name), Labor has a job in opposition to oppose bad policy – that’s who.

              Like

        • Jennifer Wilson November 11, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

          He has no justification or explanation for delaying the resettlement so he might not find that so easy to get away with. It’s highly illogical even for him.
          Then today I read there’s a plan afoot to send them to the US, a deal with Obama to be concluded ASAP.
          Trump might not be open to receiving them.

          Like

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: