The United Nations Human Rights Commission has questioned the right of Australia to ship the boat people to  PNG.

I think the appropriate response from the Federal Government should be to tell the United Nations, to f....k off!

Where was the U.N. in Bosnia when thousands of citizens were being butchered whilst U.N. troops stood idly by?

At least this is a humane solution, the boaties won't want for food, tele or computers you can bet on that.

No matter who gets into power at the next election its time Australia abandoned the refugee convention because now it is more than obvious that countries are just using Australia as a dumping ground and countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are making small fortunes smuggling refugees while denying their human rights.

Rather than muck around, both lib and lab should join in and massacre a few boatloads of men, women and children.

Thats where the old parties are heading and thats what their supporters are baying for.

No respect for human life or the rule of law.

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Rather than muck around, both lib and lab should join in and massacre a few boatloads of men, women and children. Thats where the old parties are heading and thats what their supporters are baying for. No respect for human life or the rule of law.

Says the supporter of a party that still supports people smugglers.

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Rather than muck around, both lib and lab should join in and massacre a few boatloads of men, women and children. Thats where the old parties are heading and thats what their supporters are baying for. No respect for human life or the rule of law.

The problem would be easily fixed if the Indonesians and Malaysians stopped issuing visas to these people.
Then we can up our intake of reffos and no one will die at sea..its really quite easy

I would have expected the Unitied Nations to have queries over the PNG solution.

Not because its right or wrong, but because it is a major policy shift and one they would have questions over.

If they didnt have questions to ask I would be more concerned, but then again they dont do anything anyway so its not really of consequence.

Given that the majority of countries in the UN do stuff all to help asylum seekers that take to the high seas who gives a rats tossbag what the UN thinks.
How many other countries in the UN resettle asylum seekers in the numbers Australia does..the US and Canada..and thats it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:22pm: Rather than muck around, both lib and lab should join in and massacre a few boatloads of men, women and children. Thats where the old parties are heading and thats what their supporters are baying for. No respect for human life or the rule of law. Says the supporter of a party that still supports people smugglers.

Doesn't LibLab support qantas anymore?

Oh. Am I bad. People smuggled in via tourist visas are ignored by the old parties and their supporters.


You watch, no one will start discussing theses queue jumpers.

Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations.

"Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key,"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key,"

hardly one to talk about morals, no?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no?

Attacking the messenger.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key,"

Buddy Commies! Who cares what they think?

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger.

Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone.

Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes.

Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No.

What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR.

That's humane.

The Greens Approach, Inhumane.

And yes, I don't think its wise for a self proclaimed racist and bigot to be arguing morality because a british ngo, which is hardly in a position to criticise anyone themselves, have issued a statement without addressing the core of the issue.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:40pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger. Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone. Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes. Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No. What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR. That's humane. The Greens Approach, Inhumane.

If you are just worried about people making a profit from providing a service then do what any decent capitalist would do.

Let Australia set up in competition. Seaworthy vessels, cheaper prices and cut the processing time verses the leaky boat service.

The current boat transporter's business model would sink overnight.

red baron wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Where was the U.N. in Bosnia when thousands of citizens were being butchered whilst U.N. troops stood idly by?

And remember Kofi Annan ~  Secretary-General of the United Nations?

In charge of the UN, and did absolutely nothing while 800,000 were being slaughtered with machetes.

Beginning on April 6, 1994, Hutus began slaughtering the Tutsis in the African country of Rwanda. As the brutal killings continued, the world stood idly by and just watched the slaughter. Lasting 100 days, the Rwanda genocide left approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers dead.

I remember horrific video clips of Tutsis pleading with UN troops not to leave them because a Hutu killing-squad was about to arrive within minutes. You saw the army vehicles drive off down the road.

Later video showed the utter carnage that had descended upon those terrified people.

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:40pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger. Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone. Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes. Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No. What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR. That's humane. The Greens Approach, Inhumane. If you are just worried about people making a profit from providing a service then do what any decent capitalist would do. Let Australia set up in competition. Seaworthy vessels, cheaper prices and cut the processing time verses the leaky boat service. The current boat transporter's business model would sink overnight.

And that just shows how delusional the greens have become.

You can of course setup processes where you could simply grant visas to asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia. But Australia has its limits, and while I do agree that we aren't at our limits at the moment, to simply allow a "come one come all" policy can very much leave our system completely vulnerable. And it's not just about the fact that "Australia can't take them all" that the right argues, but simply that even if we were to take all, our processes won't hold out and will buckle. And all that will happen is we'll end up with an underclass, made up of the most vulnerable. Which is something I Don't want to see. I know the Greens like to live in la la land, but reality tells us that we simply can't leave the system unchecked. And what we need to do IS put together an orderly process that helps as much as it can, in a REALISTIC world.

Hence why your idea of providing competition to people smugglers won't work. Of course the other reason being that competition means the other still exists, and still kills.

Get to reality. Stop living in dream land because you aren't actually helping anyone doing it. Instead, argue alongside those of us who say "Yes, put in a deterrent to end people smugglers. But also put in the processes to speed up processing from Indonesia."  Because everyone forgets that just because you stop 3000 a month gettin gon a boat doesn't mean they don't exist anymore: those 3000 PER MONTH will end up as either stateless or in a UNHCR processing centre that is budgeted to handle 1600 PER YEAR.

"The world" is not just the United Nations. The UN is only as effective as its membership allows. That includes Australia.

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger.

Absolutely right Greens.

Who is likely to have a vested interest and give out a deliberately misleading message Alevine?

Amnesty International - who have no truck to push on who wins the AU election and deal with the issues of human rights on a global scale as a not for profit organization?

Or the Australian Labor Party - facing an election in the coming months.


Answers on a postcard....

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:40pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger. Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone. Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes. Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No. What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR. That's humane. The Greens Approach, Inhumane. If you are just worried about people making a profit from providing a service then do what any decent capitalist would do. Let Australia set up in competition. Seaworthy vessels, cheaper prices and cut the processing time verses the leaky boat service. The current boat transporter's business model would sink overnight. And that just shows how delusional the greens have become. You can of course setup processes where you could simply grant visas to asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia. But Australia has its limits, and while I do agree that we aren't at our limits at the moment, to simply allow a "come one come all" policy can very much leave our system completely vulnerable. And it's not just about the fact that "Australia can't take them all" that the right argues, but simply that even if we were to take all, our processes won't hold out and will buckle. And all that will happen is we'll end up with an underclass, made up of the most vulnerable. Which is something I Don't want to see. I know the Greens like to live in la la land, but reality tells us that we simply can't leave the system unchecked. And what we need to do IS put together an orderly process that helps as much as it can, in a REALISTIC world. Hence why your idea of providing competition to people smugglers won't work. Of course the other reason being that competition means the other still exists, and still kills. Get to reality. Stop living in dream land because you aren't actually helping anyone doing it. Instead, argue alongside those of us who say "Yes, put in a deterrent to end people smugglers. But also put in the processes to speed up processing from Indonesia."  Because everyone forgets that just because you stop 3000 a month gettin gon a boat doesn't mean they don't exist anymore: those 3000 PER MONTH will end up as either stateless or in a UNHCR processing centre that is budgeted to handle 1600 PER YEAR.

You have just revealed you don't care about refugees drowning in leaky boats, you don't care about stamping out your supposed people smugglers and you don't support humane treatment of refugees.

As for come one come all, what number limit does the old parties have on people smuggled in on tourist visas?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Who is likely to have a vested interest and give out a deliberately misleading message Alevine? Amnesty International - who have no truck to push on who wins the AU election and deal with the issues of human rights on a global scale as a not for profit organization? Or the Australian Labor Party - facing an election in the coming months. Answers on a postcard....

Glad you mentioned that expression Mr Hicks.  Can you explain what you mean by it, and also tell us how Amnesty pays its bills.

Amnesty International has no intention to run at a profit - and once it has paid its bills - it then spends its funding into fighting for human rights around the world.

From its mission and website -

Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It says that it does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations. According to the AI website, "these personal and unaffiliated donations allow AI to maintain full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions. We neither seek nor accept any funds for human rights research from governments or political parties and we accept support only from businesses that have been carefully vetted. By way of ethical fundraising leading to donations from individuals, we are able to stand firm and unwavering in our defence of universal and indivisible human rights.


Amnesty International last week described the policy announcement of Australia as "shameful".

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Amnesty International - who have no truck to push on who wins the AU election and deal with the issues of human rights on a global scale as a not for profit organization?

You can't be serious.

Amnesty International, Green Peace, Doctors Without Borders ~ and a whole host of other Do-Gooder organisations are a Stalking Horse for International Socialism.

If Dingaan, Shaka, and Umslopogaas could hear you now, they would order their guards to stab you repeatedly with their assegais.  8-)

And then they would eat you as a 'Long Pig'.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

Amnesty International has no intention to run at a profit - and once it has paid its bills - it then spends its funding into fighting for human rights around the world. From its mission and website - Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It says that it does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations. According to the AI website, "these personal and unaffiliated donations allow AI to maintain full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions. We neither seek nor accept any funds for human rights research from governments or political parties and we accept support only from businesses that have been carefully vetted. By way of ethical fundraising leading to donations from individuals, we are able to stand firm and unwavering in our defence of universal and indivisible human rights. Amnesty International last week described the policy announcement of Australia as "shameful".

Since you are advocating on behalf of Amnesty International and agree with their position, would you care to explain which policy you do support regarding this issue?

Is it the Coalitions, the Greens, or some other policy that has been announced to tackle the growing issue.

It's not my business to put up a policy or give that verge.

It is my business to support the denouncement by Amnesty of the shameful solution offered up last week by the ALP.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Who is likely to have a vested interest and give out a deliberately misleading message Alevine? Amnesty International - who have no truck to push on who wins the AU election and deal with the issues of human rights on a global scale as a not for profit organization? Or the Australian Labor Party - facing an election in the coming months. Answers on a postcard....

I'm very impressed by your all of sudden interest in human rights.

So, what is the alternative Amnesty has to stopping people taking advantage of other people? Oh...that's right...they go mute then don't they.  Instead they deal in reactionary, as opposed to proactive approaches.

____ wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 4:01pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:40pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations. "Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger. Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone. Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes. Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No. What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR. That's humane. The Greens Approach, Inhumane. If you are just worried about people making a profit from providing a service then do what any decent capitalist would do. Let Australia set up in competition. Seaworthy vessels, cheaper prices and cut the processing time verses the leaky boat service. The current boat transporter's business model would sink overnight. And that just shows how delusional the greens have become. You can of course setup processes where you could simply grant visas to asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia. But Australia has its limits, and while I do agree that we aren't at our limits at the moment, to simply allow a "come one come all" policy can very much leave our system completely vulnerable. And it's not just about the fact that "Australia can't take them all" that the right argues, but simply that even if we were to take all, our processes won't hold out and will buckle. And all that will happen is we'll end up with an underclass, made up of the most vulnerable. Which is something I Don't want to see. I know the Greens like to live in la la land, but reality tells us that we simply can't leave the system unchecked. And what we need to do IS put together an orderly process that helps as much as it can, in a REALISTIC world. Hence why your idea of providing competition to people smugglers won't work. Of course the other reason being that competition means the other still exists, and still kills. Get to reality. Stop living in dream land because you aren't actually helping anyone doing it. Instead, argue alongside those of us who say "Yes, put in a deterrent to end people smugglers. But also put in the processes to speed up processing from Indonesia."  Because everyone forgets that just because you stop 3000 a month gettin gon a boat doesn't mean they don't exist anymore: those 3000 PER MONTH will end up as either stateless or in a UNHCR processing centre that is budgeted to handle 1600 PER YEAR. You have just revealed you don't care about refugees drowning in leaky boats, you don't care about stamping out your supposed people smugglers and you don't support humane treatment of refugees. As for come one come all, what number limit does the old parties have on people smuggled in on tourist visas?

and you seem to have become more deluded than your beloved Greens.

Perhaps if you'd like to step outside of the greens fairy land, and re-read my post?

Bloody Andrei

The boards resident bleeding heart

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w84kXy0geZ8/TxWW6tydBiI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/ALpRagKSEF4/s1600/bleeding-heart-White-Red.gif

Bloody PINKO >:(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

It is my business to support the denouncement by Amnesty of the shameful solution offered up last week by the ALP.

How can it be a shameful solution when Australia is initiating a program of Multiculturalism in PNG ~ something that was sold to us as highly advisable if we weren't to remain as bigots, racists, xenophobes, and white supremacists?

Are we smelling the foul stench of double standards here?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/oath_zps43ca791f.png

Quote:

Amnesty International has no intention to run at a profit - and once it has paid its bills - it then spends its funding into fighting for human rights around the world.

So, what does the expression 'not for profit' many organisations are described as, mean?

And do you agree that its capacity to raise donations has a direct relationship with the bleeding heart do-gooders who would love the World to be a Paradise.  Has AI spent one cent of its 'not for profit' dollars in actually assisting even one refugee in a physical sense, instead of asking every other bugger to so assist that refugee?

Just asking is all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

It's not my business to put up a policy or give that verge. It is my business to support the denouncement by Amnesty of the shameful solution offered up last week by the ALP.

Its unlike you to put up someone elses thoughts without adding your own.

If you support AI's position it means you obviously dont support the ALP's.

You dont think it begs the question, if you dont like the ALP's, then who's do you like?

Aussie wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote: Amnesty International has no intention to run at a profit - and once it has paid its bills - it then spends its funding into fighting for human rights around the world. So, what does the expression 'not for profit' many organisations are described as, mean? .

That it does not seek to run a profit following the paying of its Operating Expenses to be distributed or retained for the benefit of its owners.

Amnesty like all not for profit organizations will pay its bills from its funding and then seek to re-invest its remainder in achieving its aim of tackling human rights abuses.

Amnesty International - which has no skin in the game on an AU election - is a much better yardstick on the treatment of refugees than the AU Labor Party which is seeking to win an election.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

It's not my business to put up a policy or give that verge. It is my business to support the denouncement by Amnesty of the shameful solution offered up last week by the ALP.

Unlike some of your previous comments on this topic? They weren't shameful?

Because the people who turn up on the boats are urchins who can't afford any better.
They are the low level pond life who I am happy to contribute to making their lives better where they are in the 3rd world but I would rather not have to share my country with them thank you.

Don't we have enough deadbeats without importing other people's trash?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332104163/all

you're such a humanitarian Andrei .... dam hypocrite

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Quote: Amnesty International has no intention to run at a profit - and once it has paid its bills - it then spends its funding into fighting for human rights around the world. So, what does the expression 'not for profit' many organisations are described as, mean? . That it does not seek to run a profit following the paying of its Operating Expenses to be distributed or retained for the benefit of its owners. Amnesty like all not for profit organizations will pay its bills from its funding and then seek to re-invest its remainder in achieving its aim of tackling human rights abuses. Amnesty International - which has no skin in the game on an AU election - is a much better yardstick on the treatment of refugees than the AU Labor Party which is seeking to win an election.

Yes, you are right, but many people mis-interpret it to mean they do not make a profit at all when in truth, many of them make massive profits upon which they generally do not pay tax on the basis that they use that money to further their 'charitable' aims, AFTER they have paid their staff* quite handsomely, and in some cases I know, they pay in a most corrupt manner.   *These people will generally be the creators of said organisation.

Its okay Andre, we already know your position;


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:55am:

Why not just ignore the UN Convention and send back every boat - no matter who is on it? Why be so tolerant? It only lands us in trouble and packs the country more with taxi drivers.

& Again


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

Here's the question and you answer it if you like or leave it rhetorical - If people are trying to reach Australia and they are drowning on the way. If Australia has not invited them, or has no idea they are even coming. Then why is it Australia's problem in any way?