Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[mick]

This is a serious question what has really changed in Australia since Rudd the white knight took over. I notice he had the good sense to reject the terror suspects from camp X-ray who are looking for a new home

[Q.]

I doubt the numbers would have drastically changed, if anything the percentage of acceptance would have increased because we have since been shelling the crap out of those countries - makes for a pretty genuine refugee claim.

Repeating myself... 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.

Don't we have diplomatic representation with Pakistan or Indonesia ? Queue jumpers pure and simple.

Actually, it's not that simple. But you want to believe it is

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.

[mick]

I doubt the numbers would have drastically changed, if anything the percentage of acceptance would have increased because we have since been shelling the crap out of those countries - makes for a pretty genuine refugee claim.

Repeating myself... 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.

Don't we have diplomatic representation with Pakistan or Indonesia ? Queue jumpers pure and simple.

Actually, it's not that simple. But you want to believe it is

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.

How do you define "protection" surely they are protected under the common law of those lands? Do Indonesia or Pakistan actively expell these people? If they have enough money to pay a people smuggler, they could stay temporarily in those countries and apply through the correct channels. No they would rather come here where they can force the hand of the government through the courts. Unfortunately the long suffering tax payer picks up the tab.

[The Big Shrek]

Well mick I was also referring to your silly comments about being sued less, less involved in private lives and working fewer hours, but is that income before expenses? A median, not mean figure would also be a better reflection. Don't worry, I don't expect you to look for figures that contradict your argument.

By the way, barristers should earn a shitload more than accountants. Every man and his dog has a commerce degree, and lets face it, it's not a particularly demanding job.

[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.

[mick]

Well mick I was also referring to your silly comments about being sued less, less involved in private lives and working fewer hours, but is that income before expenses? A median, not mean figure would also be a better reflection. Don't worry, I don't expect you to look for figures that contradict your argument.

By the way, barristers should earn a shitload more than accountants. Every man and his dog has a commerce degree, and lets face it, it's not a particularly demanding job.

Lets be sensible here BS who would spend 4 years at uni to earn 50-80K per year? even the most committed socialist would not work for that for the good of humanity.

[Psyber]

No, but you swept on it to avoid answering the question again.
Doctors earn plenty. Most lawyers are around $50 to $80k. The striking specialists were asking for over $500k.

Hmm. my last year in private specialist practice my taxable income was $50K and my practice manager/wife's was $32K. A senior specialist salaried position in Victoria would pay $160K.
You'd have to compare Orthopaedic Surgeons etc, with the top Barristers I think, not with junior lawyers...
The last law firm I used, in a Probate matter, cost me $450 per hour for the senior and $350 per hour for the junior.

The question?:
No I don't recall the names of the lawyers involved and haven't bothered to look them up. I didn't go further with those issues as I'd already addressed how I think publicity pays.
That's why I left it, and focussed on your personal attack - a bullying tactic you commonly use here with anyone whose opinion you don't agree with - and then you call me a Fascist!

By the way do you recall that Hitler's Fascists were a "National Socialist Workers' Party"?
I don't know about the Italian and Spanish Fascists, but my general impression is that socialism, political correctness, and authoritarianism tend to go together.

[redandblack]

You might have a point about socialism and political correctness (in Australian terms), Psyber, but I think authoritarianism is generally more a refuge for right-wingers. As for political correctness, that's an easy label often used to cover a weak argument.

As for capitalism, in these times, they're thanking their lucky stars that socialism exists, so that they can exist

[Psyber]

You might have a point about socialism and political correctness (in Australian terms), Psyber, but I think authoritarianism is generally more a refuge for right-wingers. As for political correctness, that's an easy label often used to cover a weak argument.

As for capitalism, in these times, they're thanking their lucky stars that socialism exists, so that they can exist

If I recall correctly, in original usage "Right wing" meant authoritarian, and "left wing" liberal, but it has been corrupted in common misuse.
[Gough Whitlam was probably the last liberal socialist here, and I voted for him.]

You can be authoritarian or liberal, and conservative or radical, in combination.
So, in theory you could have authoritarian conservatives or authoritarian socialists, or liberal versions of each.
But in practice socialism tends to require enforcement, because it goes against human nature, so socialism and authoritarianism tend to go together.
Conservatism, meaning retaining the status quo, tends to require less force in western countries where the status quo is not local despotism..
[And we can chuck them out if they start to drift that way as the Howard government did.]

[redandblack]

I have to say I admire your use of sweeping generalisations, Psyber

I haven't noticed a lot of need for authoritarianism in generally socialist western countries such as Norway, Sweden, etc, over the years.

As I said though, I think most conservatives would currently be voting to retain socialism, wouldn't you agree?

[am Bays]

I have to say I admire your use of sweeping generalisations, Psyber
I haven't noticed a lot of need for authoritarianism in generally socialist western countries such as Norway, Sweden, etc, over the years.

As I said though, I think most conservatives would currently be voting to retain socialism, wouldn't you agree?

Ohh I do like a good political debate with R&B, I never can quite out argue him though....

I do like your selective use of scandanavian social democratic governmants which in terms of the political spectrum are more centreist rather than left wing as Prof Griffith (Scandanavian Studies) of Flinders Uni used to say. Does Social democratic governments of Scandavia introduction of consumption taxes in mean that our previous visionary governemnt was socialist in its outlook too? What we consider conservative initiatives such as GSTs and strong militaries are policies and practices of those governments.

Or was John Howard merely introducing a dusty copy of the World's Greatest Tresurer's infamous Option C from the 1985 Tax Summit that Bob had filed in one of the bottom draws of the Prime Ministerial desk that John found when he moved in....

Back to the debate at hand, The socialist governments of Cuba, China and Soviet union could hardly not be called authoritarian (monopolitical states, secret policies, crimes against it citizens) pretty similar to the right Wing authoritarian states of South American countries of the 1970s & 80s. So to infer that authoritarian governemts are more prevelent amongst "conservative" or "rightist politics" could be interpreted as a touch sweeping there R&B....

BTW are people aware that the Liberal/National Fraser Government allowed the migration of 100s of socialists/communists from Chilie and Argentina in the late 70s and 80s. I know as they tought me to play soccer in the back blokes of the NT. i did a very interesting school project on chile after interviewing them. yep Conservative governments a selective in their migration policies... Mind you I also went to school with teh kids whose fathers were senior officers in teh Rhodesian Govt that fought Mugabe in teh 70s....get their parents views on blacks...

HAving said that I believe authoritarian politics is the purvey of extremist politics of the left and right, so to say one side of the political spectrum advocates those repugnent forms of government is erroneous IMHO

[The Big Shrek]

No, but you swept on it to avoid answering the question again.
Doctors earn plenty. Most lawyers are around $50 to $80k. The striking specialists were asking for over $500k.

Hmm. my last year in private specialist practice my taxable income was $50K and my practice manager/wife's was $32K. A senior specialist salaried position in Victoria would pay $160K.
You'd have to compare Orthopaedic Surgeons etc, with the top Barristers I think, not with junior lawyers...
The last law firm I used, in a Probate matter, cost me $450 per hour for the senior and $350 per hour for the junior.

The question?:
No I don't recall the names of the lawyers involved and haven't bothered to look them up. I didn't go further with those issues as I'd already addressed how I think publicity pays.
That's why I left it, and focussed on your personal attack - a bullying tactic you commonly use here with anyone whose opinion you don't agree with - and then you call me a Fascist!

By the way do you recall that Hitler's Fascists were a "National Socialist Workers' Party"?
I don't know about the Italian and Spanish Fascists, but my general impression is that socialism, political correctness, and authoritarianism tend to go together.

Good one Psyber. You didn't deliver me did you? The doctor that did once complained on radio(a fair few years ago) that his yearly income was $18k. God knows how he could afford the mansion with a tennis court!

My point in asking you to name a lawyer was to prove that representing refugees does not create publicity and hence more business. If no-one has a clue who they are, how are people going to hire them?

[redandblack]

Well, TM, it might surprise you that I agree totally with you that authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of left or right wing regimes and I haven't said anything different at any stage. That was the very point I was making in rebutting Psyber's generalisation that it was generally the preserve of left wing governments.

It isn't, of course. It depends on which country, which leader, what circumstance, etc.

I note that the good capitalists on here are studiously avoiding debating the frenzied rush of the captains of the capitalist system into the arms of socialism to be rescued from their incompetence

(I didn't go into more detail earlier, in case Psyber was best friends with an authoritarian Norwegian socialist solicitor earning 200K Euro a year. You never know )

[am Bays]

Well, TM, it might surprise you that I agree totally with you that authoritarianism isn't the sole preserve of left or right wing regimes and I haven't said anything different at any stage. That was the very point I was making in rebutting Psyber's generalisation that it was generally the preserve of left wing governments.

It isn't, of course. It depends on which country, which leader, what circumstance, etc.

I note that the good capitalists on here are studiously avoiding debating the frenzied rush of the captains of the capitalist system into the arms of socialism to be rescued from their incompetence

(I didn't go into more detail earlier, in case Psyber was best friends with an authoritarian Norwegian socialist solicitor earning 200K Euro a year. You never know )

OKay I'll bite, the socialist economy of China transforming into the capitalist Chinese economy and the growth rates it experienced??

The capitalist policies of our previous visionary government correcting the ills of hawke Keating and their deficit budgets??

our current state government riding on teh economic policies of Brown/Olssen following the disasters of Bannon/Arnold.

R&B, like authoritarianism, misforming ecomomies are the result of greed (socialist governments keeping resources for their elites likewise captialist ecomomies. All philosophies of ecomoics are susceptible greed and greed is not unique to left or right economies.

[redandblack]

TM, my attempt at injecting some humour into the debate has been well and truly trumped by your statement about our previous 'visionary' government

I also note a bit of an each-way bet in quoting the example of China and recent surplus budgets.

As for the ills of the Bannon government, wasn't that also just another example of the incompetence of the captains of the banking system again?

There's not much doubt about the phrase "capitalise the profits and socialise the losses'.

However, in our usual spirit of goodwill, I acknowledge your devotion to John Howard. Someone should give him a medal

[am Bays]

TM, my attempt at injecting some humour into the debate has been well and truly trumped by your statement about our previous 'visionary' government :lol:

I also note a bit of an each-way bet in quoting the example of China and recent surplus budgets.

As for the ills of the Bannon government, wasn't that also just another example of the incompetence of the captains of the banking system again?

There's not much doubt about the phrase "capitalise the profits and socialise the losses'.

However, in our usual spirit of goodwill, I acknowledge your devotion to John Howard. Someone should give him a medal

knew that would get a bite....

mate I'm sure you'll agree that the causes of economic ills is greed and that is not unique to the either teh capitalist or socialistic systems. mate both of us can quote examples of where one system has corrected the ills of teh other.

[redandblack]

TM, I'm not sure why you would think I disagree with you about that.

I agree.

Our friend Psyber was making the point that it was generally peculiar to one side. I was only quoting an opposite view to agree with your proposition that it is common to all sides.

We agree.

Always a pleasure talking politics with you

Good night.

[Gozu]

The capitalist policies of our previous visionary government correcting the ills of hawke Keating and their deficit budgets??

You're not seriously suggesting running up budget surpluses is a good thing are you?

[Psyber]

I have to say I admire your use of sweeping generalisations, Psyber
I haven't noticed a lot of need for authoritarianism in generally socialist western countries such as Norway, Sweden, etc, over the years.
As I said though, I think most conservatives would currently be voting to retain socialism, wouldn't you agree?

In saying "But in practice socialism tends to require enforcement, because it goes against human nature, so socialism and authoritarianism tend to go together.", I expressed a personal view, based on local experience, which I grant is not necessarily universal. I was thinking that personal greed was innate in human beings and that a society committed to "sharing the wealth" is also committed to enforcing doing so by this aspect of human nature. It also, perhaps, tends to fail to enforce that policy on its leadership, as people do find ways to cheat even if not in cash terms.

I don't think it is the conservatives who may now be keen to retain socialism, so much as the radical capitalists who were committed to ridiculous gambling activities like short selling and futures speculation. Conservatism is not synonymous with Capitalism. Indeed in the Scandinavian countries you mentioned socialism is the established conservative [preserving status quo] position.

Tassie is on the mark in saying, "I believe authoritarian politics is the purvey of extremist politics of the left and right, so to say one side of the political spectrum advocates those repugnent forms of government is erroneous IMHO"

Good one Psyber. You didn't deliver me did you? The doctor that did once complained on radio(a fair few years ago) that his yearly income was $18k. God knows how he could afford the mansion with a tennis court!

My point in asking you to name a lawyer was to prove that representing refugees does not create publicity and hence more business. If no-one has a clue who they are, how are people going to hire them?

Back in the late 1970s and earlier 1980s I was doing very nicely financially and could afford a very nice house. I have one now, but only because of the money I made back then and investing it wisely. I'd would have never acquired it on the basis of my income over the last 12 years. Presumably the doctor you referred to did the same. Mind you I was working a 50 hour plus week then too - and was on call 24/7!

Rising costs, the demand for more unpaid paperwork, and a Medical Benefit Schedule that has risen by 64% of inflation since 1973 has made a big difference. My enjoyment of the profession, based on the idea I was spending most of my time helping people, was eroded by the growth of bureaucratic paperwork, and as a result the motivation to work those hours shrank. Back in that era, I worked those hours, and I bulk-billed all pensioners and Health Care Card holders because the people who paid the full AMA fee helped make it possible. In the last few years before I quit, I could bulk-bill nobody, because nobody paid the full fee, as the gap over benefits had become too great.

Apropos the lawyers - I have no clue who they are because I don't pay attention to them. That helps you to assert that "no-one has a clue who they are", but my ignorance of them [and your assertion of this being the generality] doesn't mean that they have not making themselves prominent in some areas of society, and thus attracting business there. This would have to be surveyed to see whether either of our views are anywhere near correct.

[redandblack]

Thanks, Psyber.

It seems that you, TM and I all agree