Merlin and his Political Protest (5 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

I did ask, and they said no. Infact we got into quite an argument over it.
It went something like this;
a) These people claim to be Asylum seekers. The definition of an Asylum seeker is somebody who flees to the nearest country, not somebody to pays to get on board a leaky boat, by pass 13 countries to come specifically to Australia.
b) These people are getting sheltered in a non war torn country, fed, educated at tax payers cost.
c) What are we to do with them? Let them go in Australia? Don't we have our own homeless people we should attend to first?

The fact is they came here illegally, the key word here being "illegally". They don't have any rights apart from the right to be sheltered, fed and clothed. Which they are. Our homeless people don't even get this. If it were any other country they wouldnt have made it onto our shores. They shouldn't be detained for 4 years, but they also shouldn't be handed a new life, patted on the head and told to scoot.

 

[ameh]

Well all this talk, is anyone actually going to do anything about it?

 

[iambored]

Originally posted by katie_tully
b) These people are getting sheltered in a non war torn country, fed, educated at tax payers cost.

i'm not taking either side of the argument here, but if you heard some storied about how badly they're treated you'd find that's the simple uneducated story

 

[katie_tully]

I've heard stories. It's not my point, all I'm saying is asylum seekers by definition dont pay to bypass 13 countries, they flee to the nearest safe nation, half way across the world doesnt constitute as the nearest safe country.

 

[Ziff]

And yet even the Dutch, British and French to a large extent realise the problem with this definition.

Let's see now... "hmm, I'm in Afghanistan (back under the Taleban) and I'll flee to... China! No, they'll shoot me... Iran! No... they'll shoot me... Who WON'T shoot me? Australia seems like a good option, it's sort of close..."

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by katie_tully
The fact is they came here illegally, the key word here being "illegally". They don't have any rights apart from the right to be sheltered, fed and clothed. Which they are.

The fact is they're not illegal. The key word here being 'not'. Australia is signatory to the '57 Refugee Convention Act in which we said we were willing to take all refugees. Also under UN laws anyone seeking asylum or refugee status on another countries shores with or without papers is perfectly within their rights. It's definately not illegal.

Originally posted by katie_tully
rather than sit there like a mute with a sign that didn't even make sense? Free ta refugees?? It wasn't a silent protest, it was a highly televised publicity stunt.

Actually the sign didn't say 'Free Ta Refugees' it said 'Free Th Refugees' the 'e' had fallen off 'the'. The sign made perfect sense.
Just because it was highly televised doesn't make the protest non-silent. What would be the point of a protest that no one saw?

 

[Ziff]

Just because Australia ratified an international instrument doesn't necessarily mean what is happening is illegal. Immoral and unethical yes, but because most of the conventions etc Australia has ratified it has only wacked in as a schedule under the HREOC Act 1986 (e.g. ICCPR and ICESC) they don't actually have any effect in Australian domestic law so they are impossible to enforce or use as a basis for a legal case etc.

So under Australian law the people who have entered the country seeking asylum can be deemed "illegal" by the government without any repercussions.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Ziff
So under Australian law the people who have entered the country seeking asylum can be deemed "illegal" by the government without any repercussions.

is it just me or does out government seem to only make that distinction around election time? according to the smh this year, we have not found any illegal boats entering our shores in since 2001. is that because they are no longer coming, or because we are no longer looking?

 

[Ziff]

I dunno, they seem to think that they've "curbed" the problem through their strong-arm tactics but who knows. I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the government hailing their policy as a "victory" eh?

Maybe they think wedge politics on this issue just won't work again... stupid government, of course it will!

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by katie_tully
I did ask, and they said no. Infact we got into quite an argument over it.
It went something like this;
a) These people claim to be Asylum seekers. The definition of an Asylum seeker is somebody who flees to the nearest country, not somebody to pays to get on board a leaky boat, by pass 13 countries to come specifically to Australia.
b) These people are getting sheltered in a non war torn country, fed, educated at tax payers cost.
c) What are we to do with them? Let them go in Australia? Don't we have our own homeless people we should attend to first?

The fact is they came here illegally, the key word here being "illegally". They don't have any rights apart from the right to be sheltered, fed and clothed. Which they are. Our homeless people don't even get this. If it were any other country they wouldnt have made it onto our shores. They shouldn't be detained for 4 years, but they also shouldn't be handed a new life, patted on the head and told to scoot.

well, im not sure why thats an argument, coz it sounded 1 sided. but my whole point in asking that question was to find out if you're more against how he protested than why he protested

 

[tWiStEdD]

I like this Katie Tully!

Originally posted by Suney_J
did u ask these ppl if they agree with merlin about the refugees? (should they be freed?)

That looks to me like you're asking about the content of her 'arguement', which I think could be better defined as a discussion, but I wont get picky at any rate, you're wrong to say that your were asking about the how more than the why, because you didnt. Be more careful in the future.

Since we're on the topic HOW he protested was bloody awful. He presented himself poorly and represented his cause cheaply. Much more could have been achieved through discussing it. Although the effect would probably still be nill or negative, for the reasons Katie Tully mentioned.... or perhaps we should let ourselves be over-run by illegal immigrants? It would obviously be bad politics for the government to allow the u/e rate be adversely affected as a result of weak immigration policy. We NEED a strong immigration policy since we are an island nation and we need to ensure we can 'keep tabs' on everyone in the country. It clogs up the system when we've got people without valid this or valid that because they themselves are not valid Australians. It must suck to be the police and to find a body of such an immigrant (that we let go, because we should) and then have to inform the next of kin... Kind of hard without a license, TFN, etc. Logic informs us that we cannot, for the sake of stability, just release the 'refugees'. Do you suggest we do?

Merlin is a fool of the highest calibre. He made a stand, good on him... but he made it in the most disruptive and foolish manner I have ever seen. You dont get places that way anymore. You do it these days through considered, balanced politically and socially workable solutions. He obviously just stuck with the apolitical and decided to blindly attack an issue which he seems to have little to no idea about.... Do any of us?

 

[lengstar]

and the stupidity cycle continues with little caesar at the helm.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Define stupidity, buddy. I dont care for snide little remarks...

You need to remember that just because it seems to be right morally, doesnt make it right in reality. It is unlikely that anyone (Labour, Liberal/National, Democrats... but maybe the Greens) would let those alleged refugees out... So what do you expect?

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
You need to remember that just because it seems to be right morally, doesnt make it right in reality

so what you're saying is morality isnt part of reality?

 

[tWiStEdD]

Damn, dude... NO!

Everything that is moral is not necessarily right in reality, just as everything right in reality is not right morally.

Read Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. He wrote that with realism in mind, not morality. Things change alot when you look at it from the different perspectives. Namely: Realism and Morality.

They're not totally different, but there are some 'technical' differences.

NB: I dont use The Prince as an example of how to behave, rather to draw a contrast between how it seems we're supposed to think, and how we behave in reality.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Ziff
Just because Australia ratified an international instrument doesn't necessarily mean what is happening is illegal. Immoral and unethical yes, but because most of the conventions etc Australia has ratified it has only wacked in as a schedule under the HREOC Act 1986 (e.g. ICCPR and ICESC) they don't actually have any effect in Australian domestic law so they are impossible to enforce or use as a basis for a legal case etc.

So under Australian law the people who have entered the country seeking asylum can be deemed "illegal" by the government without any repercussions.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that states those who seek asylum or refugee status on the shores of any other country are not illegal... that law is very much a part of Australia... Therefore "the people who have entered the country seeking asylum can be deemed "illegal" by the government" is wrong... Under international law they are perfectly legal.

Originally posted by Ziff
I dunno, they seem to think that they've "curbed" the problem through their strong-arm tactics but who knows. I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the government hailing their policy as a "victory" eh?

Maybe they think wedge politics on this issue just won't work again... stupid government, of course it will!

A victory? The problem IS the issue of those hundreds of refugees unjustly imprisoned in our country... and that's still going on... I don't think by turning away boats of people fleeing for their lives or by locking them in horrendous prisons will ever be considered a victory... and I dont think much of anyone who considers that a victory... For a politician to come out and say it was victorious would be stupid, whether a lot of people agree or not the politician would be absoutely slammed by the media and half the Australian population.

 

[lengstar]

i highly doubt that... the general population can be very stubborn and very stupid

there was an article in SMH today about the 20-30 age group having a distain for politics which is why the conservative vote is getting through

 

[400miles]

well the media and most of the world slammed that girl who gave the thumbs up in the photo of the iraqi prisoner abuse...

i think your underestimating the general public in a huge way... and btw I only said half the australian population

 

[tWiStEdD]

400miles:

Actually, international treaties are not enforceable within Australian borders regardless of wether Australia is a signitary or not.

I cant remember the beginnings of it, as it was a long time ago... but either way it would be foolish to assume that the Aust govt would do anything visibly illegal. What they're doing is, under Aust law, totally legal.

You need to understand the difference between domestic and international law. Domestic law is enforceable within the borders of the given country, International law is extremely difficult to enforce given that there are no international police and even if there were, they would be violating the sovereignty of a country any time they tried to enforce international law.

Read up on the topic next time, champ.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
400miles:

Actually, international treaties are not enforceable within Australian borders regardless of wether Australia is a signitary or not.

I cant remember the beginnings of it, as it was a long time ago... but either way it would be foolish to assume that the Aust govt would do anything visibly illegal. What they're doing is, under Aust law, totally legal.

You need to understand the difference between domestic and international law. Domestic law is enforceable within the borders of the given country, International law is extremely difficult to enforce given that there are no international police and even if there were, they would be violating the sovereignty of a country any time they tried to enforce international law.

Read up on the topic next time, champ.

Check up on what I said next time, buddy.

I wasn't saying the government was doing anything illegal. I was saying that it is a mistake to name the refugees as "illegal" as under both the Act signed by Australia and by UN law, everyone who feels in danger has the right to flee to another countries shore and gain refugee status.