Australian Politics Forum - Australian Hypocrisy

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #135 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 7:58am

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Quote:

We Australians have determined that they are not the alleged culprits of people smuggling due to their age

No Helian, that is not what we have determined. Their age does not change the facts, only the consequences.

We have determined that minors are not people smugglers.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49222 At my desk.	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #136 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 8:10am Is a minor caught smuggling drugs not a drug smuggler? Is a minor caught stealing not a thief?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #137 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 8:12am freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 8:10am: Is a minor caught smuggling drugs not a drug smuggler? Is a minor caught stealing not a thief? This thread refers to minors caught with alleged people smugglers, which we have determined are not themselves alleged people smugglers.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49222 At my desk.	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #138 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:04am Quote: which we have determined How so?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #139 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:51am freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:04am: Quote: which we have determined How so? Because we have determined that, due to their minority, they are not capable of intent to smuggle people into Australia.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #140 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:55am from what I have read 14 year old boys in some countries and Indonesia is one of them is a MAN...he is not longer a child..he is expected to do what anyone of 18/20 will do.... and yes I would imagine that would include steering a boat..full of paying asylums seekers.
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #141 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:57am

cods wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

from what I have read 14 year old boys in some countries and Indonesia is one of them is a MAN...he is not longer a child..he is expected to do what anyone of 18/20 will do.... and yes I would imagine that would include steering a boat..full of paying asylums seekers.

And some other countries allow marriages at 13.

However, we are in Australia (or at least I am) and in Australia, Australian law prevails.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49222
At my desk.

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #142 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 10:09am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:51am:

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:04am:

Quote:

which we have determined

How so?

Because we have determined that, due to their minority, they are not capable of intent to smuggle people into Australia.

People under 18 are not capable of intent in general, or only with respect to this particular crime?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #143 - Nov 7^th, 2011 at 8:24am

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 10:09am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:51am:

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:04am:

Quote:

which we have determined

How so?

Because we have determined that, due to their minority, they are not capable of intent to smuggle people into Australia.

People under 18 are not capable of intent in general, or only with respect to this particular crime?

Forget the cock-eyed attempts at deflection...

This thread refers to minors caught with alleged people smugglers (and Australia's seriously flawed attempts at verifying their claims of minority).

We have determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers.

Under Australian law with regard to minors caught with alleged people smugglers, intent or foreknowledge is not pursued legally.

My personal belief (and do not confuse this as the point of this thread) is that they are highly unlikely to be capable of people smuggling insofar as it would require (a) the ability to control 50+ potentially panicked adults, (b) considerable knowledge of how to reach a destination unknown to minors (namely Ashmore, 170Kms from the southernmost Indonesian island - Rote) and (c) significant experience and skill at navigating a vessel through open waters - Not an exercise Indonesian fishing village kids would ever have embarked on to catch fish for their village.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49222
At my desk.

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #144 - Nov 7^th, 2011 at 8:01pm

This is not a deflection. It goes to the heart of the matter. You are insisting that people smugglers are not even accused of being people smugglers. There is a big difference between letting a kid off for committing a crime and rpetending he did not do it in the first place.

Quote:

We have determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers.

How so?

Quote:

Under Australian law with regard to minors caught with alleged people smugglers, intent or foreknowledge is not pursued legally.

Of cours it isn't, as they would be let off regardless of the outcome. That does not mean that 'we have determined' there was no intent.

Quote:

as it would require (a) the ability to control 50+ potentially panicked adults

How hard do you think it is to control people in a boat? Where are the going to run to?

Quote:

(b) considerable knowledge of how to reach a destination unknown to minors

You have pointed out about a dozen times now that they were not the 'pilot' of the boat. Each time I respond 'so what' and you end up backpedalling and pretending I am the one deflecting, only to make the same idiotic claim yet again.

So, this time try answer. So what?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #145 - Nov 8^th, 2011 at 12:46am

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

This is not a deflection. It goes to the heart of the matter. You are insisting that people smugglers are not even accused of being people smugglers. There is a big difference between letting a kid off for committing a crime and rpetending he did not do it in the first place.

Quote:

We have determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers.

How so?

Quote:

Under Australian law with regard to minors caught with alleged people smugglers, intent or foreknowledge is not pursued legally.

Of cours it isn't, as they would be let off regardless of the outcome. That does not mean that 'we have determined' there was no intent.

Quote:

as it would require (a) the ability to control 50+ potentially panicked adults

How hard do you think it is to control people in a boat? Where are the going to run to?

Quote:

(b) considerable knowledge of how to reach a destination unknown to minors

You have pointed out about a dozen times now that they were not the 'pilot' of the boat. Each time I respond 'so what' and you end up backpedalling and pretending I am the one deflecting, only to make the same idiotic claim yet again.

So, this time try answer. So what?

I'm loving the airplay this is getting beyond this forum..

I will not respond any further to my personal belief (as stated above) regarding the issue of minors caught with alleged smugglers.

This thread refers to minors caught with alleged people smugglers (and Australia's seriously flawed attempts at verifying their claims of minority).

We have (as in Australia has) determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers.

Under Australian law with regard to minors caught with alleged people smugglers, intent or foreknowledge is not pursued legally.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49222 At my desk.	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #146 - Nov 8^th, 2011 at 7:27pm Quote: We have (as in Australia has) determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers. Round and round we go.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #147 - Nov 8^th, 2011 at 11:07pm freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 7:27pm: Quote: We have (as in Australia has) determined those minors are not themselves alleged people smugglers. Round and round we go. Not me, buddy... Just you.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Australian Hypocrisy Reply #148 - Nov 9^th, 2011 at 12:51am Just seen this 'topic'. Obscene and redundant. Lets be more positive eh??????????
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Australian Hypocrisy
Reply #149 - Nov 9^th, 2011 at 7:40pm

Seems we're a bit sloppy when it comes to 'expert' witnesses with regard to determining the age of Indonesian fishing villagers' kids

Quote:

Doubts were raised about Dr Low's credentials as an expert witness for the Crown.

BELINDA LONSDALE, BARRISTER: Your principal area of practice, I think, is in gastro-intestinal radiology?

VINCENT LOW: Yes.

BELINDA LONSDALE: And in fact you've told us that you're not a bone radiologist?

VINCENT LOW: Yes.

KERRY BREWSTER: Judge Bowden ruled that Wat had been under 18 at the time of his arrest. His judgement casts grave doubt on the AFP'S almost total reliance on the controversial X-rays to prove age.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3358566.htm?site=melbourne

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged