Dnarever wrote on Jul 7
th, 2013 at 3:09pm:
chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7
th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
[quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1373154694/10#10 date=1373159781][quote author=chicken_lipsforme link=1373154694/1#1 date=1373155461]Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow.
Bob did clear this up with KRudd.
Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law.
How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning?
How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping?
How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else?
Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means?
Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel.
Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers?
.
Wrong.
The turn back the boats policy was not about turning back sinking boats a few hundred meters off shore, and never was.
Howard was the last person to allow foreigners and criminals to dictate or to pressure our border protection policy.
Sewing of lips didn't work.
Starvation didn't work.
Burning detention centres didn't work.
And neither did sabotaging of the boats.
There has been more people lost at sea under Labor's watch than in the twelve years under John Howard.
The Coalitions policy is safer.
Forum
Pages: 
