Tony Abbott: Xenophobia Action Man
By Clifton Evers (writing for Kurungabaa)
Australian opposition leader, the Liberal Party's Tony Abbott, has decided to bring back the ‘Pacific Solution' as a way to ‘turn back the boats' [see end of post for "Debunking myths about Asylum Seekers"].
The Pacific Solution was the name given to the Australian government policy (2001-2007) of transporting asylum seekers to detention camps on small island nations, such as Nauru, in the Pacific Ocean, rather than allowing them to land on the Australian mainland.
The Pacific Solution consisted of three central strategies. Firstly, thousands of islands were excised from Australia's migration zone or Australian territory. Secondly, the Australian Defence Force commenced Operation Reflex to interdict vessels containing asylum seekers. Finally, these asylum seekers were removed to third world countries in order to determine their refugee status.
The policy is consistent with Abbott's 'Real Action' campaign which casts him as the man to protect Australia from ‘illegal immigrants'. His campaign is reminiscent of the attitudes of some of the men from Cronulla who took part in the race riot in 2005. On that occasion young men wanting to protect Australia bashed other Australians.
There was not much swell in Cronulla on December 11, 2005. Shark Island lay dormant. Some of the local surfers in the pub joined about five thousand people gathered at Cronulla beach protesting against the reportedly offensive, unacceptable, and ultimately "unAustralian" behavior of "gangs" of young Australian men of Lebanese descent.
Descriptions of these men sexually harassing local women, intimidating other beachgoers, and being boisterous (such as littering, reckless driving, and loud music) had spread by word of mouth and through printed and broadcast media. These concerns were combined with discourses that have framed men of Middle Eastern descent as a "dangerous other" from whom Australia must be protected. This is particularly the case in light of September 11, Iraq, the London bombings, and the Bali Bombings. Many of the Lebanese-Australian men who go to Cronulla are Christian. But this does not seem to matter, within the current international political context "Muslim" is often conflated with "Middle-Eastern" and "terrorist" and "illegal immigrant".
Abbott's Real Action electoral campaign includes a TV advertisement with a map of Australia. Bold red arrows signal ‘illegal immigrant' arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The image wouldn't look out of place as war propaganda warning us of invading terrorist hordes.
This advertisement also encourages us to conflate terrorists, illegal immigrants and refugees.
Politically and culturally Abbott has chosen to use a very particular model of manhood to advance his cause. Just like the men who took part in the race riots, Abbott is acting out a troubling model of Australian manhood. It's one that relies on xenophobia, masculine pride, nationalism, and an ugly model of mateship to work.
I have been doing research with a broad range of young Australian men for a decade now, in cities as well as rural and regional areas. I also grew up at the beach as a surfer and lifesaver. Unfortunately, I keep getting first-hand experience of this model of manhood working across too many of Australian society for my liking.
After the Cronulla Riots I did research with some of the young men who took part. They believe they were letting everyone know that they were proud of ‘Australian values' and were ‘defending' their country - just like the Diggers [soldiers] did.
During World War One and Two the Australian Diggers came to represent strength, mateship and sacrifice. As a young man all I heard were celebratory stories about the diggers. It wasn't until much later that I heard whispers about the trauma, fear, and horror of some of these blokes who went to war.
A mythological Australian manhood emerged that came to emphasise strength where no vulnerability is allowed. Mind you, this mythology was written about the Diggers, not by them. They knew war isn't manly. The Diggers found this out the hard way, many of them came home injured and traumatised.
The values associated with the Aussie Digger were later reinvested in, among other masculine role models, the Aussie lifesaver. Through the image of the lifesaver, embodying mateship, racial purity, heroic sacrifice, and upholding a duty to public service continued the rhetoric of war to public safety. As the historian Richard White observes, the lifesaver became a figure in whom "Australians could ... identify nationhood with an ideal type of manhood".
Abbott likes to think he fits into a slouch hat or sluggos nicely. Action man Tony. White, patriotic, Christian, able-bodied and willing to defend Australia at all costs. He is regularly seen in the press running triathlons, in sluggoes, in a lifesavers cap, and even surfing.
The frontline to prove Abbott's masculinity is not Gallipoli (World War One) or New Guinea (World War two) but the Australian coastline and the incursion of a new threat in the form of refugees and asylum seekers, recast as illegal immigrants and terrorists.
The manhood Abbott performs is a move to shore up the privileges and authority that come with currently being at the top of the pecking order as a white male in Australia. The problem is it silences the stories of others, such as refugees.
Who are we being protected against? Refugees like my friend Arjun?
Arjun is an ex-child soldier who managed to escape the war in Sri Lanka, walk for a week with no food to locate a ramshackle boat, get himself and his daughter to Indonesia, and then get into Australia. While here Arjun has got himself a job, works tirelessly in his new community, studies international politics at university, and supports members of his family who remain in his homeland.
For me, it is actually people like Arjun who exhibit the traits of the Diggers.
The ironic thing is, some men continue to believe that Australian manhood means being vigilant and able to protect ‘us' from such people.//CLIFTON EVERS
***
Debunking the Myths about Asylum Seekers by Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education
Myth 1 - Boat People are Queue Jumpers
Fact: In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the international coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered. Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such asylum seekers are forced to continue to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid for their lives are fleeing from the world's most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sadaam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq. Antonio Domini, Head of UN Humanitarian Program in Afghanistan, states that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places in the world in which to survive.
Myth 2 - Asylum Seekers are Illegal
Fact: This is untrue. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law. Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring. ‘Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.
Myth 3 - Australia Already Takes Too Many Refugees
Fact: Australia receives relatively few refugees by world standards. In 2010 Australia will receive only 12 000 refugees through its humanitarian program. This number has remained static for three years, despite the ever-increasing numbers of refugees' worldwide. Australia accepted 20 000 refugees each year at the beginning of the 1980's. According to Amnesty International 1 in every 115 people on earth are refugees, and a new refugee is created every 21 seconds. Refugees re-settle all over the world. However, the distribution of refugees across the world is very unequal. • Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76) • Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530) • Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)
Myth 4 - We're Being Swamped by Hordes of Boat People
Fact: 300 000 refugees arrived in Europe to seek asylum last year. In contrast, 4174 reached Australia by boat or plane. In 2000, Iran and Pakistan each hosted over a million Afghan refugees. The real burden of assisting refugees is borne in the main by the world's poorest nations.
Myth 5 - They're Not Real Refugees Anyway
Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.
Myth 6 - They Must Be ‘cashed up' to Pay People Smugglers
Fact: It is alleged that people who have the resources to pay people smugglers could not possibly be genuine refugees. The UNHCR disputes claims about ‘cashed up' refugees saying that payments made to people smugglers range from $4000 - $5000 AUD. In reality, many families and communities pool their resources in an attempt to send their relatives to safety. People smuggling is a crime that the international community needs to combat. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of asylum seekers' claims, nor their need to seek refuge. The international community, in eradicating people smuggling, is also required to address the growing numbers of asylum seekers throughout the world. As a Western nation, Australia has a role to play.
Myth 7 - There is no Alternative to Mandatory Detention
Fact: Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention should be minimal. At a cost of $104 a day per head the policy of detention is very expensive. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system. A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane.
Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).
Myth 8 - If We Let Them In, They'll Take Our Benefits
Fact: A common misconception is that refugees arriving in Australia will ‘steal' the entitlements of Australians. The reality is that refugees, like migrants, create demand for goods and services, thus stimulating the economy and generating growth and employment. A recent UCLA study has shown that unauthorised immigration boosts the US economy by $800 billion per year.
Dr Clifton Evers is a cultural researcher at the Journalism and Media Research Centre, University of New South Wales. He is the author of the recently published book Notes For a Young Surfer.
Comments
“Is Australia’s present policy regarding boat arriving Asylum Seekers correct?â€
This essay will consider Australia’s present policy regarding Asylum Seekers, as it relates to unauthorised boats. It will then outline the relevant factors that should be considered, such as, environmental, economical and our moral responsibility, to determine the correct policy, whilst assessing the extent to which the present policy adequately addresses the relevant factors.
Australia’s relevant policy is described in a fact sheet produced by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as follows;
“People who arrive without authority by boat in Australia, either on the mainland or at an excised offshore place, are detained and transferred to Christmas Island while their reasons for being in Australia are identified.
Unauthorised arrivals, regardless of whether they arrive on the mainland or at an excised offshore place, undergo a comprehensive and thorough assessment process, including security checking, to establish if they have a legitimate reason for staying in Australia. This process includes:
• assessing identities, as many people dispose of all personal papers en route to Australia
• assessing whether the person is raising claims which may engage Australia's protection obligations
• Obtaining formal police clearances from countries of first asylum in which they have resided for at least 12 months, to confirm they are of good character. In some cases this may take several months, but the vast majority of cases are decided within 90 days.â€
This is Australia’s current policy regarding Asylum Seekers.
Australia’s rich economy has been built on immigration. Economic boosts are the result of an increase of population. History has shown us that since white settlement in Australia, the economy has flourished largely due to increases in immigration. Immigrants bring new skills that have been developed over thousands of years in their own cultures.
The economy highly benefits from ‘hard work’. Australia is enriched with a huge number of ‘hard working’ immigrants. Some of these people, particularly Asylum Seekers, come from less-advantaged backgrounds. When accepted into Australia, they have a strong sense of working hard to benefit their children’s future. For example, there is a Vietnamese owned bakery in Sandringham. The owners were immigrants to Australia, who came without any material wealth. They had a strong sense of working hard. They set up their own business, the bakery, and now employ several people. The product they produce, bread, is of a good quality, and they provide competition to the other local bakeries. This has the consequence of ensuring a quality product that is available at a competitive price. All these matters improve the economy. Additionally, having worked hard they are now able to educate their children well. Their daughter is now training to be a doctor and no doubt will be an asset to our country. Economically boosting stories such as these are very prevalent in the community, and have formed the basis of our thriving country since the beginning of white settlement.
In contrast, some Asylum Seekers are perceived as relying highly on financial welfare such as pensions and the public health system. This exhausts taxpayer’s money. Allowing all Asylum Seekers to be accepted as citizens could create another public expenditure in Australia. This is an argument that is particularly attractive to Australians who are xenophobic.
There are economic advantages and disadvantages to allowing the entry of Asylum Seekers. Yet, we know that history is the best predictor of the future. Australia has history as evidence that immigration highly benefits our economy. For example, in the 1970’s a huge amount of Vietnamese ‘boat people’ flooded into the country. This had a very positive impact on Australia’s economy. Thriving Vietnamese businesses are very common around Australia nowadays, particularly in the Melbourne suburb, Box Hill. Australia felt morally responsible to allow masses of Vietnamese immigrants to be accepted into our country after the Vietnam War. Believe it or not, Australia was once generous. Allowing all Asylum Seekers to become citizens of Australia will boost our economy.
Australia’s current policy restricts many Asylum Seekers being accepted into our country. This is very anti-economical. The current policy does not adequately address the economical factor in determining the correct policy. In order to create a policy regarding Asylum Seekers that is economically sustainable, we must accept all Asylum Seekers to become citizens of Australia.
We are living in exceptional times. Humanity has upset the ecological balance of the planet that has been established for nearly four billion years. In order for humanity to survive, we have to make radical changes to how we live. Human population is rising at incredible rates. “In 2025, the world’s population will be 8.2 billion and if Australia’s immigration policy has not been radically changed, Australia’s population will be 22.6 million, which is only about 1%.†Australia and all other nations have to ensure that development is balanced. Otherwise it will become almost impossible to reverse the trend of humanity’s spoliation of the earth’s riches.
Having pockets of wealth and poverty across the world restricts the ability of all nations to unite and tackle climate change together. This is because the incentive to change is different for the rich and the poor. For instance, the poor may see ecological conservation as a luxury that can only be afforded by those who don’t need to worry about adequate food or water to survive. Accordingly, poor nations cannot come to the table of international negotiations on climate change with the backing, or prioritizing, of their people.
Restricting immigration into Australia increases the global gap between rich and poor. Poorer nations are forced to continue housing people who want to relocate into richer countries, such as Australia. Consequently the global phenomenon of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is perpetuated. These poverty stricken people, who seek the chance to ‘have a go’ in wealthy nations, such as ours are captured within their nation’s poverty cycle.
Scientists say humanity has barely ten years to reverse the trend of the spoil of natural resources. Australia and all wealthy nations urgently need to allow all Asylum Seekers to be accepted into their communities, as this has repercussions on the world response to climate change.
On a purely national perspective, allowing all Asylum Seekers to be citizens of Australia is not environmentally beneficial. If the population increases, higher amounts of consumption will occur in Australia. This causes higher demand on coal-powered energy plants, food, water and oil for fuel. Therefore, creating more carbon emissions and adding to the depletion of natural resources. However, climate change is not a national issue, it’s a global issue.
Environmental factors must be considered when determining the correct policy regarding Asylum Seekers. In order to fight climate change, clean and balanced development is vital. In order to achieve this, Australia and all wealthy nations must allow all Asylum Seekers to be accepted into their communities. The current policy regarding Asylum Seekers is unsatisfactorily meeting our environmental needs. It is restricting the amount of Asylum Seekers to be accepted into our community. This is fuelling unbalanced development on the world stage.
A key factor in determining the correct policy for Asylum Seekers is Australia’s moral responsibility. “The core of any policy dealing with people – any people – must be a determination to protect human dignity. The current policies of locking up men, women and children or diverting them to neighbouring countries fails this fundamental test. It treats people who have committed no offence as if they are criminals and places them at risk of further trauma of the circumstances which caused them to flee their own country.â€
Australia is a wealthy, privileged country. For a society to truly consider itself evolved and civilized, there must be acceptance of the responsibilities that are associated with this privilege. A key responsibility for Australia is to show largesse and compassion to those less fortunate. A policy that treats individual Asylum Seekers with dignity and compassion is therefore essential. The present policy requires the involuntary locking up of individuals. We are now aware that this arrangement has caused family breakdown and intense trauma. On no level could this policy be considered compassionate and dignified.
The present policy has been influenced by the irrational and illogical factor of racism. Xenophobia is very much present in our community. Australia’s most successful Prime Minister, John Howard played on this phobia of foreigners. He stated “We must reduce the amount of Asian immigrants†. This comment is clearly racist, as it is targeting only one race, not the general immigrant community. The Howard government was a representation of racist Australians. However, the present policy on Asylum Seekers also represents the Labor governments play on racism. Unless great leadership arrives, Australia’s policy for Asylum Seekers will fail the fundamental test of being morally correct.
Australia’s present policy regarding Asylum Seekers does not adequately address our moral responsibility. Asylum Seekers “are detained and transferred to Christmas Island while their reasons for being in Australia are identified.†Locking up innocent and traumatised people in a prison-like centre is not morally correct. Expelling some of these people back to their poverty stricken, war-torn country’s that they desperately fled is also not morally correct. The policy regarding Asylum Seekers failed to be morally diplomatic. In order for the policy to be correct, Australia must immediately accept all Asylum Seekers without detaining them in the process. The present policy’s focus on detailed assessments that are often difficult, if not impossible, to back with evidence, means people are detained for long periods of time. This is highly morally reprehensible.
In conclusion, the government’s policy regarding Asylum Seekers, as it relates to unauthorised boats is incorrect. It fails to adequately address the environmental and economical factors. Above all, the overriding moral responsibility is not present. In order to achieve an appropriate policy, all Asylum Seekers must be accepted into our community without unnecessary detaining in the process.
Debunk this,Australia has already exceeded it,s sustainable population level.All the worlds problems stem from overpopulation on a scale that has pushed the world,s ecosystems to brink of collapse.Tragic as it is anyone who thinks opening our doors is a fool.When the titanic sank people in life boats rowed away from people in the water lest they be overwhelmed.Khamal once said "Why are people so cruel",guess he had a lot to learn about the extent of man,s problem,s.
Yeah, Right On Pablo.... Pablo.. not a very Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi name there mate, maybe you better protect us by closing the door on the way out. So easy to play the " I'm thinking of the planet" card when your all nice and warm and safe in the beauty of your suburban home. The people in the life-boats were all first class passengers who thought the rest were expendable. Have you been reading Nietzsche, my little uber-man ?
I dont really care, let em all in, but if they drop in on me out in the surf I'll rip their bloody arms off. Who cares how they get here or where there from, we need people to work and pay taxes so i can get my welfare money. Drugs,alcohol,cigi's and the occasional hooker all cost mate.
Making a few assumptions there hirsute.I suggest that when you pull your head out of Nietzche,s arse you do a bit of travelling yourself.Auntyjack seems to know we have immagration.
Just Forwarding and email that landed in my inbox:
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
• A JOB,
• A DRIVERS LICENCE,
• SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
• WELFARE,
• FOOD STAMPS,
• CREDIT CARDS,
• SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
• FREE EDUCATION,
• FREE HEALTH CARE,
• A LOBBYIST IN CANBERRA
• BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
• THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY's FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
• AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.
I think maybe we being fair enough.
Pigdoggin, prove those claims or is that simply viral misinformation used to muddy the waters in a debate regarding OUR approach to being humanist and ethical?
Pigdoggin,
I couldn't agree more.
Perfect way to exemplify the values of our country and it's humanity by contrasting it against these countries which are either tyrannical and/or gross human rights violaters.
I'd be ashamed if we were anything like them.
Thankyou again.
PS 'Corssing the border illegally' is a misnomer.
I am just forwarding on something which i think gives the arguement an interesting spin and a laugh, in addition to something to consider in that if anyone entered a country illegally they would be sent back or detained also. Just how far the term 'detained' extends and the conditions of that detention is not up for me to decide. I do however think it is simply insane if people are thinking that some form of dentainment and processing is wrong. I think we owe it to ourselves and the communtiy as a whole, to actually be mindful of the backgrounds, identity etc.etc. of people entering countries illegally.
What's not funny though is at some level that email implies perhaps we should treat refugees in a similar manner as above, and what's also not funny is their are plenty of bigots out there which agree I'm sure (I'm talking about you, wearers of the "*insert map of australia* If you don't like it f*#k off" T-shirts).
Hey Clifton
Excellent article, well written, thanks for exposing Tony Abbott for who he is. I am ashamed to be in his electorate.
"I do however think it is simply insane if people are thinking that some form of dentainment and processing is wrong."
I don't think that's the issue here though, no one is suggeting that. It's the way asylum seekers are labelled illegal and people of whom we should be afraid. It's not illegal to arrive without a visa and claim asylum. And also the vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees.
In most cases these people are fleeing their probable death because they are the wrong race or religion. Using their attempts to escape to foster fear in the Australian populace for political gain is poor form. That is why Abbot should be hammered on this.
whenever i hear the words 'pacific solution' the words 'final solution' seem to pop into my head first.
Excellent post piggy,
You forget to add that once their here and they dont get exactly what they want they call us rascist. I dont care if they come as long as their daughters put out I'm happy.
Has anyone been through europe latley?
The middle eastern refugees have really had a positive impact on countries like france thats for sure, oh and some parts of england have greatly benifited from having them there.
Cant wait for the first sharia law court to be held in Australia.
You can come up with all the stats that you want to but until you have been to a place where muslims have moved in and pretty much taken over you dont know shit.
Australia is an awsome country it is common sense to screen people to see who they are and kalium there is nothing wrong with telling people where the door is if they dont like a place, otherwise they cause conflict.You dont stay at places you dont like its common sense.
and whoever made that comment about the lebanese in cronulla being from christian background is of there head, they were muslim, they even said they were on tv and radio.
go to france and see the real impact they have on society over there where they live in mass, its totally fucked and they had the same type of people with bleeding heart disease saying let them all in.
in your eyes i am a racist but its really just answering back, as soon as someone says no, and points out the negative points about illegal refugees coming to our shores they are called bigots and what ever else,
i am of Australian indigenous heritage and my wife is japanese
so now you no how racist i am
"Australia is an awesome country it is common sense to screen people to see who they"
I agree.
"and kalium there is nothing wrong with telling people where the door is if they dont like a place, otherwise they cause conflict.You dont stay at places you dont like its common sense."
If there was something I felt was wrong with my country I'd do what I could to help fix it. If all you do is run away from the problem, then who's going to change it? Certainly not the citizens who give a damn, because by your logic, they would have already left! So yes, there is something terminally wrong with it.
I think I agree with the banning of the burqa in France, and from what I've gathered there was some justifiable outrage at the behaviour by some of the muslims down there near cronulla (of course a mob riot is hardly the forum to address those concerns).
That's all a world away from the subject of addressing our international obligations of taking in legal refugees (where did you get the 'illegal' from?)
who's only hope is to escape persecution where they are from, and eek out a decent life.
I'd be the first to tell them what's what if they tried to tell me I couldn't go for a surf on the Sabbath though!
Way to miss the point there johnsmith.
I can't speak for others but in 2002 I lived in France for 6 months, specifically in a predominantly muslim quarter of the northern city of Lille. It's called Wazemmes. So by your criterion, I know shit.
Never had any troubles. In fact I fondly remember the time and there are many things from that part of town that I wish we had here in Oz. The sense of community was very strong and very open. So yeah, I'd agree with you - the islamic (mainly Tunisian and Algerian) immigrants had a great influence on the area. Plenty of French people including some of my friends, were afraid of the area but as soon as they spent time there, they changed their minds. But as I said, that's beside the point.
We're talking about refugees here mate. We're talking about people who will be killed if they stay in their countries. They have no choice but to leave. Many choose Australia, and really who can blame them? It's a fantastic country. Of course they need to be screened, but we Aussies also need to avoid the assumption you seem to make that because they are different they are dangerous. The fastest way to radicalise people is to marginalise them.
It's a classic chicken and egg situation. Are there social problems with new immigrants because they are dangerous people who refuse to "fit in" or is it because the locals treat them with disprespect and fear because they are different? I'd wager on the second and I imagine you'd put money on the first. I say the second based on the fact that I've seen things like African immigrants being verbally abused from a car driving past them on the street for being black, or wearing traditional clothes. That sort of "welcome" makes it pretty hard to feel like you can fit in.
"I say the second based on the fact that I've seen things like African immigrants being verbally abused from a car driving past them on the street for being black, or wearing traditional clothes."
Absolute scum. They're the ones who should be on boats floating around in the middle of the sea.
I asked an Aboriginal what he thought of boat people.I still got the lump on my head to prove it.Untill these country,s accept population control there will be no end in sight,at some stage the line will have to drawn.Bob Geldoff ,bless his loving heart,pored million,s into Africa to save them. What happened ? they had a quick feed raced home made some more babies, bought some new Kalishnakov,s and got straight back to it.United Nations spent billions on agricultural reform,s what happened? they had a good feed and multiplyed and so on.The root of the problem is in their homelands and their attitudes.Accepting the fruits of their labour will never be a solution.
Pablo. It's just plain dumb to suggest asylum seekers are going to cause problems of overpopulation. How many people are we talking here? How many asylum seekers arrived by boat in Australia last year? I think it's about 4000.
Overpopulation is not the reason people seek asylum in Australia (it's the threat of death) and with numbers so low their presence here does not lead to a population problem.
Benski If they were,nt overpopulated they,d have somewhere to go. They are the products of overpopulation.Like lab rats, people turn on each other when there,s not enough to go round.I hate to be the one that has to tell you but when it come,s to not enough to go around 4,000 is,nt even the tip of the iceberg.I admire the compassion of my detractors, unfortunately it ain,t gonna be enough.
What about refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan Pablo? They are not the products of overpopulation. We illegally invaded their countries, turned them upside down and tore them apart, setting in motion the circumstances that would see them flee. We invaded their countries so why can't they come here?
I,am not sure what part of it you don,t get stunet.If they wer,nt overpopulated ther,d be a nice little productive part of their country they could move to ,man it would have to be a shit load easier than coming here!.As for tearing their countries apart they,ve been do,in that for years so I agree ,we should have stayed out of it and left them at it.Now they do have a case for coming here.
"Benski If they were,nt overpopulated they,d have somewhere to go."
That's a pretty laughable statement pablo, but I'll try.
If it were population that was the problem it would be reasonable to expect that persecution of individuals based on race and religion would not have been a problem when populations were lower. Now I think episodes like the spanish inquisition and the crusades among others, provide us with empirical evidence that this suggestion is quite wrong. Back in those days the populations were much much lower than they are today, yet the non-catholics tortured and killed by the spanish inquisition couldn't simply find a nice productive part of their country to move to. This is because they were persecuted and rounded up because of their religion, not because of a lack of land.
I wish it were as simple as you seem to think (because reducing overpopulation is relatively straightforward - educate and empower women), but sadly it is not.
Pablo that aboriginal bloke probably knocked you on the head because he thought you were being a smartass.All white fella's are boat people remember?Now you think your being invaded and boat people are going to overpopulate YOUR land.What a bloody joke!
I wonder what the public perception would be if the pollies banged on about the other illegal's, all the Euro's and Sep's that skip on their visa's. Are they o.k. because they flew in or because they look the same as us? No political points to be scored there.
hirstute, that's a good point. There is an interesting blog about that linked to the Crikey website where the numbers are analysed. Turns out boat people make up a pretty small number of asylum seekers. Here's a link if you're interested. The third graph is the one I'm talking about.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seek...
Sorry to be posting so much on this everyone but I do find it worthy of discussion, particularly since there is so much rubbish portrayed in the media.
Anthropologists all agree that from the time man rubbed two sticks together he undertook hazardouse migrations to new lands due to population pressure.It,s how the world was populated.There was less people but technology only allowed a certian density before pressure was applied.Man has always cloaked his conflicts under different labells ie race,religion,honour ect.Go for a surf ,tell me it,s not overpopulated.If a surfer a booger a mall rider and a SUP were all out at pumping Snapper by themselves they,d all be buddies.Put200 of them out there and see what happens .
Spongebrain did you just get it ?
Hi Pablo,
The assertion that Australia is already overpopulated is not convincing, for me. Australia is a country which is one of the least densely populated countries on earth. While it is often suggested that large areas of Australia cannot support more than a very sparse population (technologies can change this eg. solar energy) this claim needs to be coupled with the fact that over 70% of all Australian agricultural and energy production is for export. The state of the resource base in Australia is largely determined by the overseas market, and not by immigration and the consequent size of the Australian population. What about the claim that migration distributes, rather than adds to, an increase in world population? An anti-immigration position also has serious consequences for basic democratic rights, as the right to live where one chooses. If you prevent people from immigrating, shouldn't they also be prevented from emigrating? Should Australians be allowed to emigrate to other countries with higher population densities, such as the USA, Britain and Europe?
"Anthropologists all agree..."
A word of advice Pablo: don't use academic justifications when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You've shot this argument off in so many directions to fit your preconceived framework that it's ridiculous. The reason no-one is responding is because it's become obvious that you are just going to spout another nonsensical postulation so...what's the point?
Look, it's beside the original argument but I have to set you straight. People did NOT undertake hazardous migrations just because of population pressures. History is littered with such journeys and there are myriad reasons for them. One of the most persistent could be the George Mallory justification - 'because it is there'. The craving for adventure and pioneering cannot be underestimated.
Put your three surfers out at the most perfect, and uncrowded, wave in the world and at least one of them will still look around the next headland.
Pablo most of the human migrations to new lands were pre agricultural by nomadic hunter gathers.Agriculture didnt start till after the last ice age 10,000 years ago,by 50,000years ago humans had reached every continent.Agriculture was the key to civilization & population growth.The excess in food allowed humans time to develop technologies to support that growth & live in environments that were inaccessable to hunter gatherers.Hunter gatherers quickly depleated an areas natural resources & had to move on.Homo sapiens were not the the first Hominids to reach these new lands from Africa either.What forced their migrations?Over population?Dont think so,the fossil record shows that Hominids were rare.Look at Australia first colonized for no other reason than a prison for Britain,they lost America as a dumping ground for crimminals & the unwanted.It stayed pretty much that way for over half a century.The discovery of gold is what brought population growth to this country not over population in Europe.In the modern world with global trade its possible for a country to exist beyond its agricultural base.There's still room in our life boat for now.Just move your fat ass over a little.
Give me a choice between Gay Bob and KRudd and this xenophobic action man you write about and I will take the xenophobe any day.
Fact is that since KRudd loosened up the laws, people have died trying to get here. Where's the value in that?
We need to consider the facts without distorting the truth. These people are coming here because they are afraid, hungry, persecuted etc. They do not necessarily mean us any harm. Their morals beliefs, and way of life, may vary from ours to some extent. This is not necessarily a problem however foreigners do need to understand that our way of life must not be compromised by their presence.
We need to introduce an efficient identification system for people who have come here illegally or as refugees. There must be stringent reporting schemes implemented where these people must report where they are living, the work they are doing, etc etc. We must then introduce integration seminars where these people can be taught the laws, values and expectation of any foreigner wanting to join our community. Temporary Visas must be introduced where regardless of concern back home, if they are found to be breaking our laws or stepping out of the bounds of their Visa agreements, they be deported.
It is simple, this way every one is given a fair chance. If they blow it, they are out. We must protect the citizens of Australia first and foremost. Like it or not our constitution and way of life is based on core Christian values. I am not a strict Christian however I do find comfort in the following ideals. Killing is a crime, rape is a crime, theft is a crime. Above all else men and women are equal. I have no doubt that most or at least a high percentage of refugees agree with this. Those that don’t don’t agree with our way of life simply have no place here. Those that do are welcome to join.
Some fuckwits will undoubtedly come from left field with their 2 dollars worth and label me a racist. Others will think my approach is too lenient. There need to be thought out debate on this topic that is not based on fear or emotion but rather the best and most fair outcome for all. After all we are the land of opportunity. Its what you do with that opportunity that counts.
If i have to take you all on it,ll have to be one at a time.
Cliff.Our enviromental scientist,s say we are beyond our sustainable population levels,I suggest you take it up with them since you won,t take my word for it.Did,nt you notice the state of the Murray or the fact that there is,nt enuogh water or the water restrictions or that we have an ElNino based climate. Sure cliff we are an export based economy .Try telling people that they,ll have to radically reduce their export based life styles so a whole lot of people can move here.
Atticus If no one is responding then WTF are you doing? Explorers may travel for the reasons you give but family,s don,t leave unless they,re in need of hope and opportunities.
Spongebob. Well done with the history .Consider this if they needed new
prisons would,nt that mean that they,d run out of room on the prison hulk,s?.Gold provided opportunity and hope.All this is consistent with overpopulation .
Buddwha.I agree entirely.But lets also do something about the underlying reason they are coming here and will continue to come here in exponentially increasing numbers.
Seems to be a battle of opinions rather than a argument or discussion on the topic. Pablo I accept that overpopulation is a issue, but ,not the underlying issue in this debate. So, what are your proposals in dealing with what you see as the "underlying reason they are coming here and will continue to come here in exponentialy increasing numbers." I'm interested to hear your proposal, rather than a emotional response. I was the first one to throw shit at your first comment,a emotional response, but, I'd rather a good discourse on the topic instead of a rant. Tell us what you think.
Seems to be a battle of opinions rather than a argument or discussion on the topic. Pablo I accept that overpopulation is a issue, but ,not the underlying issue in this debate. So, what are your proposals in dealing with what you see as the "underlying reason they are coming here and will continue to come here in exponentialy increasing numbers." I'm interested to hear your proposal, rather than a emotional response. I was the first one to throw shit at your first comment,a emotional response, but, I'd rather a good discourse on the topic instead of a rant. Tell us what you think.
A contentious issue hirsute, I'm quite hairy myself. If someone posts under the auspices of Aussie pride, they're immediately labelled a racist or a bigot, if from the other camp, bleeding heart leftie. But it's hard to take the middle ground sometimes. I'm surprised nobody has raised the age old 'but they've bypassed a dozen democracies to get here' line. In that though, I think there is some truth. If the sole motivation was to escape persecution, violence and displacement, Australia is a long way to come, with many countries offering relatively safe harbour in between. You know, if someone pulls a knife on you, wouldn't you run to the nearest safety house? Why run a hundred k's, catch a train, plane, boat etc. when the whole object was just to get to safety? So, with my blurred logic, one would assume that a high precentage of asylum seekers are in fact economic refugees. Having said that, who can blame them? I would want to come to Australia too, with all it had to offer.
But, the longer term implications and the fact that a small minority choose not to assimilate and embrace the chance they've been given, then that's carried over into the next generation. Personal experience? The good, way too much to mention here, some of the most beautiful wonderful people I have met from all over the world and have the privilege to know, that have made Australia their home and shared with me their culture, food and friendship and I in turn, them. The bad? As a result of maybe the first generation of these migrants, who havn't known what their parents have known, but, for example me getting punched in the face in a Broadbeach Cafe a few years ago because my girlfriend made the mistake of staring at one of these 'lads' who in turn called her a filthy s**t (I took exception to that) but I was seriously outnumbered. My colleague ordered off the beach in Cronulla (yep, Cronulla) because she was having a mid week sun-bathe in a bikini, reading a book, minding her own business. She was threatened with physical violence by a group of ladies who took exception to her lack of clothing. One of my staff who was accosted by a group of young, cool 'hippity hoppers' with the promise of pot and a good time. She was 17, cute and because she declined their offer, was grabbed by the hair wherein they unsuccessfully tried to force her into a waiting car. She got free and was spat on. Police made inquiries and even knew the offenders (she wasn't the first one) but nothing came of it. She's in her mid twenties now, a lawyer and bitter.
I'm sorry, I'm off track. Everyone deserves safety, shelter, food and the chance to progress, it's when it becomes someones right as bestowed upon them by their god with a total disregard for the rest, including the country that offers them this safe harbour, that's when it becomes the problem. But like everyone on this forum, I havn't provided an answer.
I don't even live in Australia at the moment. I live in probably one of the most racist countries in the world and I've had a few beers tonight but I think the concept of a 'fair go' holds water.
Also, I know this isn't the right forum, but Pablo, are you the one and the same Goldy Palm Beach local that used to terrorise the shit out of anyone that caught your eye around 25th/27th Ave? It's a long bow but you didn't scare me (I'm from the Northern end) but surfed Palmy often. By the look of your writing, you've mellowed and if it's you, you're probably too old like me to scare anyone now. C'mon man, is that you?
Ok pablo, I'm going to have one last try. I don't think you're ever going to change your mind as it's rusted onto this idea that the ills of the world are overpopulation, despite evidence to the contrary. I'm over it but I can't let your ideas go unchallenged.
Firstly to the notion you have suggested that the problems that lead refugees to seek asylum in Australia are caused by overpopulation. Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the cause is when someone will be killed because they are of a certain race or religion, they are refugees. Whether it is overpopulation or not, they are the target (and despite our best efforts in places like Afghanistan to rid the place of the perpetrators) and they will be killed if they do not flee. The cause is irrelevant.
The argument that we should not accept these people because Oz is overpopulated. For starters you misplace your ire. 4000 refugees compared to net immigration in the hundreds of thousands. Now why do we take in so many migrants? Because economically we'd be stuffed without them. Been to the doc lately? Chances are you'll be seen by an Indian or Pakistani doctor because we haven't been training enough. Without these migrants we'd be stuffed. We have an aging population which means big medical bills to pay in the next 20-30 years with a shrinking tax base to pay for it. We need immigration to fix that. Without it, we'd be stuffed.
So regardless of what the enviros are saying we need some increase in population at least in the short term. So to you're wrong to suggest we need to halt our population growth and you're wrong to suggest that refugees are going to cause a problem when our net migration intake is in the hundreds of thousands a year. And finally whether or not it's overpopulation in their homlands is simply irrelevant to the debate at hand.
zenagain No definately not.I don,t hassel] anybody and never have, but I am old..
Fair call Hirsute.The unfortunate reality is that the world is reeling under out of control capitolism.There really is no one at the wheel.Market force,s rule the day.The system requires growth to survive.
Without population growth there is no market growth,we all know where that end,s the GEC was a taste.There are sustainable alternatives and i could spend all day on them as a practicing permaculturalist myself.
Frankly I think the end is near, people are so caught up in their economic realities that they,re just not listening.Start looking at some land in the country and a sustainable lifestyle If you want advice contact me i,ve been doing this for over 30yr,s and have some impressive results.I,d be happy to help.
,After extensively travelling the third world I believe there is no hope, which is why they are coming and who can blame them.I would too.
Pabllo I can see you are keen on history.The hulks,was it over population or policies of the ruling class that filled them?The closing of of the estates forcing subsistence farmers into the cities?The dawn of the industrial revolution,men replaced by machine?The new harsh laws on property,hanging for stealing something worth more than 5 shillings reduced to transportation across the sea?In those days you were rich or a peasant,no middle class.On a global scale does something similar exist today?Do the rich nations take the bulk of the worlds resources,the best lands to support a high standard of living?Will we go to war to protect our access to those resources in someone elses land?Yes I agree water is the deciding factor for population growth in Australia.But look at the waste.Growing thirsty crops like cotton & rice.Its funny that apart from macadamia nuts nothing has been done to turn Australian plants & grasses into productive food plants.European plants have had hunderds of years of selective breeding,but with modern technques it might be possible with our plants.If it is possible, could we use these new plants to make semi arid lands sustainably productive?Look at our ageing powerplants,I read somewhere it takes 1 ton of water to produce 1kw of electricity.Thats 1000 liters of water per hour to run a small bar heater!If what Ive read is true & I hope its not,these old steam engines use a horrendous amont of water.look at the loony ideas that people have about the land.Imagine wanting to mine the Liverpool plains,Australias only productive drought resistant land.What for?Coal.Risk the Liverpool aquifer a national treasure for a quick buck for the share holders overseas.We have lived on credit in this land & now the bills are comming in & we have to bite the bullet & pay them.Ruined lands can be restored,productive lands preserved & improved.Old power stations gradualy replaced with solar salt storage,geothermal,wind & wave.Desalination plants powered by these new stations could take the strain off the rivers.Yes I know its money,but economy of scale will make it cheaper as we continue replace the old system.We hug the coast & have done since the first fleet,we only go west to get rich.Mining dosnt build towns anymore,demountables & fly in fly out workforce.Out west towns are dying while the coast suffers over development.Could the west be repopulated with these refugees?Can some of these dying towns be revived by these people.There are areas where farmers cant get enough seasonal workers.Jamming these people into already crowded cities isnt the answer,sprinkling them around out west might be.They might be able to see opportunities out there that we dont see.With our help they might change the way people live in this country.Its got to be better than being shot or starving.
Listening to you Spongebob,maybe there is hope.You are correct, althuogh i think you,l find population and policy,s go hand in hand. Now all you have to do is convince the mindless mass,s of their folly and somehow prevent overpopulation from eating away at your hard earned rewards.
Ps sorry about the spongebrain jibe
On Ya Stu! You have my utmost respect. Love and compassion rule!
Good article on Pacific Solution and detention:
http://inside.org.au/six-days-on-nauru/
This is from Biology concepts and conections Fith edition campbell reece taylor and simon chapter 36.9 page 736 (these people are considered the among the leaders in research for biology in the world)
Human population growth has finaly begun to slow, from a peak rate of 2.19% in 1962 to 1.6% in 2003. The rate is predicted to continue its decline, slowing but not stopping popultion growth over the next decades. Even at these lowered growth rates, the worlds population is predicted to reach 7.3 to 8.4 billion by 2025.
The full wieght of human activity no longer fits comfortabley within the confines of the earth. To accomodate all the people expected on earth by 2025 and improve their diets, the world would have to double food production. All ready agricultural lands are under pressure. overgrazing by the worlds growing heards of livestock is turning vast areas of grassland into desert. In africa the number of livestock often exceeds grass lands by half or more. Water use has risen six fold over the past 70 years, causing rivers to run dry, water for irrigation to become depleted, and levels of ground water to drop. And because so much open space will be needed to support this expanding human population many thousands of other species are expected to become extinct.
definantly by 2080 the world will reach peak carrying cappacity.
It goes on for about 5 pages and im not typing it all but the references are up there for you to look up, you will have to go to the library because it wont be on google (if your really concerned)
poppulation growth makes polititions look good, it artificially boosts our economy, you can google that. Whats that got to do with this debate
the earth is almost full. people are migrating to get to better places
but should we let them in if in the long run it will cause strain on our own country, its sad and may appear heartless but we shouldnt.
The majority of Australia isnt farmable in its current state (we would could pump our poo inland (instead of the sea) for farming wich every surfer would love.
We cant keep accepting people here, i would like to see how far yor love and compassion go when you havent any food. Its nobodys fault its just how things are set up.
If the powers that be keep taking refugees they should be heavily screened and detained like they are at present.
compassion is good, even though i sound heartless but there comes a point where you have to say no for the good of the people that are allready here
The one constant you can depend on here on planet Earth is change. All things change, even hardened attitudes. Here in Australia the ground is shifting under our feet. The structure, makeup ethnic diversity of the Australian population is steadily altering in response to the changes and tensions that are happening elsewhere on the planet. It is true that increasing the population of Australia will place serious stress on natural resources and impact on the ecology of natural areas. But as the world population grows this is true for the entire planet. Australia is interconnected with the rest of the living world and humanity. Despite a desire for isolation in some quarters, it's no longer possible for Australians to live remote from the rest of the planet. As much as Tony Abbott advocates pulling up the draw bridge and manning the ramparts to repel "invaders", it is no longer acceptable to our neighbours and other nations we deal and trade with to do this. The global movement of humanity is happening and has been accelerated by famine, conflict and depredation across the poorer nations of the world. In a way the chickens are now all coming home to roost after many decades of neglect and exploitation that originated from the time when many of these counties were colonial outposts of the major western powers. History has left an unpleasant legacy that is now manifesting itself in many of the problems the world is experiencing. Not the least of these is the global movement of humanity from less desirable places to richer counties. The solution of course is to attempt to repair the damage causes in earlier times, but given human nature this is not likely to happen in any meaningful way for sometime. As for back home here in Oz, there will be the inevitable tensions brought about by the changing makeup of the population. This also occured in the 1950's and 60's with the large influx of Yugoslavs, Hungarians, Italians and Greeks, but Australia has been left vastly richer for the experience. As for muslim immigrants and refugees, it is worth remembering that Muslim immigrants from Afganistan substantially contributed to the construction of the Overland Telegraph Line and the opening up of outback Australia through the introduction of the Ghan Camel Trains over a century ago. If you visit Maree in Far Northern South Australia you'll find the descendants of the original Afgan muslim immigrants living there. There's even a small mosque. But you'll be hard put to find more dinky di true blue Australians anywhere. So it's worth considering, that just as diversity in nature enriches an ecosystem, human diversity also brings about healthier social structures and enriches the character of a nation. As for boat people, our nation identity is predicated on the concept of giving people a fair go. With this in mind I suspect the national paranoia around this subject is vastly disproportionate to the reality.
I find it interesting that the way the Rudd government is managing immigration, including still using Christmas Island and the suspension of processing of Afgans and Sri Lankans gets little critisism. If Abbott was doing the same thing I believe there would be a different perception of performance. I think depending on who people normally vote for clouds there view. More focus on the policy and the outcomes, not just whose mouth it is coming out of.
I personally don't want immigration at the moment as I need to buy a house. With the strong demand especially in Sydney, the prices have risen. So once I get my house, we can ramp it up again. to introduce another subject ( which probably is just as interesting to many surfers) the first home buyers grant and stamp duty concessions should be scrapped, at least till my kids grow up(come to think of it, that will artificially increase prices , so probably a bad idea)
I just read zenagains post( the long one not the one about his childhood bully) and I found it a very articulate piece and echoes my views. There are millions of people living in what we would consider terrible conditions. They just don't have the aid, info or resources to travel. You die just as dead whether it be from poverty or persecution.
observations(i don't have clever answers to this problem, just commenting on reactions)
people who talk of compassion, when challenged are ready to verbally go some one with a knife- or call them rasist-reminds me of if you say you are not sure of the causes of climate change.
Is racism a generalisation based on someones race(it must be negative I am guessing) well there are some generalitions about races that are correct. I think it is wrong when saying it covers everyone in that race. For example a certain race(or group) may have a higher percentage responsible for crime, wearers of unstylish clothing or perform poorly academically, but to say all (insert race) are crims, dags or dumb is wrong.
Even though races have and will blend to a degree. There will be races who will group together. We see evidence of this in particular suburbs. I would do the same if living OS. It is interesting at schools how racial groups stick together. I enjoy the company of most people, but prefer my own racial group(sounds racist, doesn't it). Then I have the job of finding decent people in my racial group, as like most racial groups there are some real nobs in mine.
Enough of this random ranting.
NOTE I wrote in my last post that I had read somewhere that it takes 1000 liters of water to produce 1 kilowatt of electricity.I was way of the mark,could not find where Id read it,but found on the net it's 1.8 liters of fresh water per kilowatt hour.Not horrendous,but a waste all the same.Pablo thanks mate see you in the bear pit,umm...forums
I'm not surprised to see either side of this argument creating hot debate. I am a white male British expat who spent four years getting past your immigration barriers costing my family in excess of 50 thousand Australian dollars . They hold 37 thousand in case my father gets sick in this country and has to use medicare. Its all fair .
Abbot however is a conservative politician who will never see political power in office . He will fail .
he is also a kook and he cant surf
Dreamers! Not a single one of you wankers has got anything original to say, you are all parroting media hype or some shit you have read somewhere that suits your mindless point of view. I have read this, I like it so I will push it. Shame shame shame This report, that report this crap, that opinion - I have read it so it must be true ... Sheeple all, bah bah bah
So rubber bob are you going to tell us your original thoughts or are you going just sit on your balls & whinge about the pain?
I already have dude, scroll back up the page to my other comment
L & L
"for those who come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share"
Tony Abbot never looks right or left when he paddles on to a wave, I know because he has dropped in as well as kooked (especially at the bower)right in front of me numerous times.
His approach to catching a wave is similar to his approach to policy making.
I blatantly DO NOT agree with Tony Abott's plans for Pacific Solution. Because like most political decisions made in this modern day madness, the interests of "People" and I mean people as a whole (regardless of race, status, religion etc) is always second to economic strength, protection of our beloved countries, money, power and most scarily fueled by - FEAR!!! Fear and propaganda is what drives these political campains. You need to look outside of the box to get a clear veiw on anything as TV and media controls so much
Its so easy to point the finger at the unaccounted for, the wierd minorities that do not have any power because they had never been given a chance in life at all. We need to start embracing more of the unknown and put a little faith into it. Afterall who owns the planet? Should this notion even be entertained?
It is a scary thought to think of some of the attitudes aussies take towards Assylum seekers, attitudes such as natural selection and bullshit like we must protect our country and blah blah blah. Because its true... we all were originally boat people! All us whities came hear and murdered all the aboriginals! yay what fun (sarcasm).
In short I don't believe we have the right to deny refugees fair and legal assylum.
I mean if we don't have humanity what do we have left? War? Lets look at how many problems we have created on the planet....Global warming, war, more war, pollution, war, crealty to animals, war, death etc
I mean with so many issues we are faced with on the planet we might as well work together not start wars and most of all STOP BEING GREEDY!!! Be content with less, be sustainable, give a little, do something to make a difference!!!
I know i'm going off the track a bit but I recently broke my leg so have had plenty of time on my hands!
Some documentaries I strongly recomend are...
"EARTHLINGS"
"RELIGULOUS" jon Maher
"SUPERSIZE ME"
"Out Foxed"
Thats all for now...
PS: Pablo, you are an idiot
"The Corporation" is also another good doco i recomend
rialto, judging by your post I,am going to recomemend some viewing for you.
SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARF,S
PINOCHIO
THREE LITTLE PIG,S
CINDARELLA
When you finished with the fairy tailes you might want to read The Future Eater,s by Tim Flannery, Austalia leading anthropologist on the effect,s of population movement,s in our region.
Next time you break your leg see if you can land on your head, it may nock some of the shit loose.