Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[am Bays]

Now if we can just bring The Big Shrek into the fold....

[Psyber]

Thanks, Psyber.
It seems that you, TM and I all agree

Yes, fundamentally I am a conservative/liberal socialist. It is authoritarianism I fight!
Extremists magnify all the little deviations from their doctrines and get authoritarian, while the rest of us reach for common ground.

[redandblack]

When it comes to authoritarianism (henceforth to be written as Auth'n), I think your footnote says it all

[Dirko]

And another 3 this fortnight have entered Australian waters.

Allegedly, the latest boat was doused with petrol and set on fire, whilst under escort
by the Australian Navy.

CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY

[Q.]

"All are believed to be Afghanis fleeing that war-torn country."

Really, after we spend billions bombing...err, democratizing their country they're coming here to take our jobs. F****** queue jumpers, why don't they just get on the internet and apply from their shelled out homes

[Dirko]

"All are believed to be Afghanis fleeing that war-torn country."

Really, after we spend billions bombing...err, democratizing their country they're coming here to take our jobs. F****** queue jumpers, why don't they just get on the internet and apply from their shelled out homes

Yeah and why don't we just roll over and let them in....

They knew what they were doing, as far as I know unless the boat had wheels, you can't set sail from Afghanistan. So assume they went to Indonesia, then I'm sure they could've started the proper process there, but no they must move on as they know the Indonesian government would remove them. You're right nothing but queue jumpers....

[Q.]

I've already addressed these points earlier in this thread.

[Q.]

In countries where Australia has no diplomatic representation there is no standard refugee process and therefore there is no 'queue' to jump. Asylum seekers are then forced to travel to other countries to find protection, some choosing to make a fairly perilious journey to Australia having had families and communities pool together resources in order to pay smugglers.

International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country.

[Q.]

Pakistan and Indonesia are not signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor to the 1967 Protocol; neither doe they have any legislative framework for the protection of refugees. The countries lack a legal foundation for international protection of refugees based on which the minimum requirements could be reliably guaranteed.

[Q.]

Asylum seekers or refugees won't have lawful residence in the country and therefore risk arbitrary detention and possibly refoulement. There is no lawful access for these persons to the workforce and thus they are not able to work legally, which eliminates any adequate and dignified means of existence. There is no possibility of exercising any civil, economic, social or cultural rights.

The UNHCR has continually disputed unfounded claims that refugees are all cashed up. I'm repeating myself again, but it is commonly found that community resources are pooled in order to send relatives away.

[Leaping Lindner]

And another 3 this fortnight have entered Australian waters.

Allegedly, the latest boat was doused with petrol and set on fire, whilst under escort
by the Australian Navy.

CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY

Come now. Let's not go "overboard" until we have proof Mr Reith....um sorry...SJABC

[Squawk]

And another 3 this fortnight have entered Australian waters.

Allegedly, the latest boat was doused with petrol and set on fire, whilst under escort
by the Australian Navy.

CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY

Come now. Let's not go "overboard" until we have proof Mr Reith....um sorry...SJABC

I find it fascinating that two versions - one story from the WA Premier no less and one "we wont speculate" story from Min Debus - can emerge from a single incident when in all likelihood, both parties had the same single source of information. Systems for information flow in these situations are very robust, yet because of the nature and timing of this matter twp different government representatives have spoken in contrasting terms.

In my personal view, if this matter does prove to be a deliberate act then by definition it could actually be Australia's first case of domestic terrorism in 30 years. However, I think it highly unlikely that this would be acknowledged. Nonetheless, watch that space.

[Gozu]

Possum Comitatus destroys Andrew Bolt on this:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... -part-142/

[ORDoubleBlues]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

[dedja]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

No, not at all ... he is simply an attention seeking, small minded racist whose journalistic skills barely fit on a postage stamp. I've often wondered whether he is Piers Akerman's love child.

[ORDoubleBlues]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

No, not at all ... he is simply an attention seeking, small minded racist whose journalistic skills barely fit on a postage stamp. I've often wondered whether he is Piers Akerman's love child.

Give me a break.

[dedja]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

No, not at all ... he is simply an attention seeking, small minded racist whose journalistic skills barely fit on a postage stamp. I've often wondered whether he is Piers Akerman's love child.

Give me a break.

LOL, you take him seriously?

It's all theatre mate ... read his blog and you'll get the idea.

[Lazarus]

Did anyone see John Elliot on Q & A last night?

Great move by the ABC to get him on there and make a fool of himself.

[mick]

Did anyone see John Elliot on Q & A last night?

Great move by the ABC to get him on there and make a fool of himself.

John Elliott says it how it is, without spin, he may well be a fool, but his views are held by a sizable but largely silent group of people, who may be fools, but they still vote. Elliott was right not to enter parliament as he doesn't have the guile required. I found the program very entertaining - especially Peter Garrett's soul in a box. Is Wison Tuckey being a surrogate Pauline Hanson that will turn this into a much bigger issue than it currently is ?

[Lazarus]

Did anyone see John Elliot on Q & A last night?

Great move by the ABC to get him on there and make a fool of himself.

John Elliott says it how it is, without spin, he may well be a fool, but his views are held by a sizable but largely silent group of people, who may be fools, but they still vote. Elliott was right not to enter parliament as he doesn't have the guile required. I found the program very entertaining - especially Peter Garrett's soul in a box. Is Wison Tuckey being a surrogate Pauline Hanson that will turn this into a much bigger issue than it currently is ?

I agree to an extent with you Mick. However I'd say Elliot says it how he sees it rather than saying how it is. He doesn't know how it is.

I'd also say the sizeable group of fools are unfortunately all too vocal.