In aus.religion.christian A 'Net friendwrote: > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote: >> In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: >> > "Chris Ho-Stuart" <> wrote in message >> > . >> [snip] >> >> I do not believe for a minute that consideration or care for >> >> legal applicants is the motivation behind the popular support >> >> for refusing the tanker permission to land. >> > >> > Neither do I. >> > >> > However, before we say "it is important for us to be kind" we need to >> > consider if kindness is always kind. >> >> In this case, I believe kindness is kind, to all concerned. >> The kindness I would have liked to see is not actually all >> that kind; the detention centers are no bed of roses. > > It is compared to where they come from. This supports my point that we should have more compassion. >> >> However, you still ask a good question, which deserves an answer. >> >> >> >> My answer is: no; it would not be unfair on people making legal >> >> applications for us to allow these people to land and be processed. >> >> It is not as if we are proposing to give them immediate residency. >> > >> > I doubt those making legal applications will see it that way. How long is >> > the wait? >> >> Neither did the people in Jesus' parable see it his way. That is >> the risk with using Jesus as an example. He often sees things >> differently. >> >> In any case, note two things. First: I am not proposing we simply >> give the asylum seekers residency. I am saying we should have allowed >> the Tampa to land and taken the asylum seekers into the same custody >> as we would do for other illegal arrivals, rather than attempt to >> wash our hands of the matter and leave 460 people languish on a >> container ship. (But I would like to see improvments in the detention >> centers generally.) > > Wot about the next boatload?? Gonna take 'em too?? And the next one..? And the > next one..? and the next one...? and the next one...? and the next.... Yes. We, as a nation, are legally obliged to take some responsibility for everyone within our borders, whether they be legal or not. However, I am in favour of turning back boats at sea where possible, and of actions aimed at stopping the flow at the source. The Tampa, as I have noted several times, is not an illegal people smuggler. It is a ship which effected a rescue at sea, at our request, and it is a ship that badly needed someone to help them in turn to handle the people they had rescued. I wish I could say we were the kind of nation who would without hesitation give this backup to the Tampa; but alas it seems we are not. I am certainly not proposing we grant permission to land to every ship which approaches our border. >> Similarly, we should not leave illegal arrivals to swim for it if >> one of these little boats actually founders without a compassionate >> freighter nearby willing to answer a mayday. It is worth mentioning >> that already we have a case now of a vessel deciding NOT to answer >> a request from Australian Search and Rescue to proceed to assist >> with a mayday call; and this is directly attributed to the shoddy >> treatment we gave the Tampa after her rescue. >> >> Second: if there is a problem with long waits for legal applicants >> (and I think there is a problem!) then the solution is to try >> and speed up that process -- not to use that as an excuse for >> refusing to accept a responsibility of care for illegal arrivals >> on our shores. > > More burden on Ozzie taxpayers. (Sigh) Where does it all end. The actual costs to us as a nation are small; and I don't see any major expense associated with trying to handle refugee applications as quickly and efficiently as possible. I am certainly not proposing blanket acceptance of all applications, nor am I proposing easy residency for illegal arrivals. But the answer to your question is that it never ends. The world is imperfect, and there will always be refugees. [snip] >> I am not proposing we ignore illegal activity. I am not proposing >> we disregard any laws. > > You have already done so. They are ILLEGAL immigrants. The captain > of the Tampa defied a DIRECT ORDER from Australian authorities > not to enter Australian territorial waters. By suggesting that > we allow them to land you are suggesting precisely that. No. The fact that *they* are illegal does not impose any legal requirement on us to refuse to take them off the hands of the Tampa. The fact that we gave orders to the Tampa not to enter Australian waters may have been within our legal rights, but it is most certainly not disregard for any laws at all if Australia had been more generous and given the Tampa permission to sail in our waters. I do not propose we disregard any laws. I am proposing that we take the entirely legal action of handling the arrivals in the same way that we handle other illegal arrivals, which takes into account their illegal status. The captain of the Tampa declared his own mayday. One might criticise him for that -- though I would not. The fact that he had direct orders from Australia and from Indonesia not to enter their respective waters put him in a completely impossible situation. I am ashamed we did that to him, especially after he had picked up 438 people in a rescue on the high seas at our request. >> I am proposing we treat these people like we treat all other illegal >> arrivals. But I am not in favour of a blanket refusal to consider >> the possibility that illegal arrivals are genuine refugees that >> merit compassion and support and help to find a new home. Being >> illegal in this case does not automatically make people bad, or >> unworthy of our compassion. >> >> I think there is a tension here between being legalistic, and being >> compassionate. I'd rather we were compassionate. I think the Tampa is >> a special case: it was not one of the ferries carrying illegals. It >> was a freighter than had conducted a rescue on the high seas: and >> I wish we were the kind of people who looked first at the immediate >> needs of the people and *then* worried about the legalities. >> >> I think it would be entirely reasonable (albeit expensive!) to >> have patrols to find and turn back illegal shiploads of people >> attempting to land on Australian territory. But once they have >> landed it is another matter; and when they have been rescued from >> a sinking vessel at our request it is also another matter. >> >> Once they have landed, I think we should accept responsibility for >> people > > And your reason why you think we should accept that responsibility is....? > Because they are on Australian soil?? Good one. IOW anyone who can make it to > Australian shores has a right to be here. I don't think so. Legally speaking, Australia does have some legal responsibilities to anyone at all on Australian soil. This is not saying that they have a right to be here; but on the other hand Australia does not (for example) have a legal right to simply put them on a boat, tow them to international waters, and leave them there. We do have some legal responsibilities; and we should certainly accept those responsibilities as a member in good standing of the international community and as a signatory of various treaties on such matters. I would be interested to find out more specifics on the exact legal obligations Australia has accepted with our various treaties; but I am pretty sure I have this basically correct. [snip] >> Fairness was not the motivation for turning away the Tampa, and >> I think we agree on this point. Being fair to our legal applicants >> means handling their applications as quickly as possible. Fairness >> to our legal applications does not imply refusing to give any >> consideration to the case of people who arrive illegally. > > And what may I dare ask is fair for the longsuffering Australian public????? I do not think the Australian public is even slightly longsuffering on this issue. The expenses of decent handling of illegal arrivals in accordance with international humanitarian standards are not actually a great burden on the public; and the expenses of being more sympathetic to the Tampa are probably less than the grandstanding for which we opted, and which has such wide support. [snip] >> > The only reason the Tampa is a special case is because it got world >> > coverage. Where was compassion when the other boats were turned away. >> >> The Tampa is a special case because it was a perfectly legal ship >> which came to the rescue of another ship in distress, at our request. > > I am currently seeking clarification of this. The Tampa received a request from the Australian Search and Rescue Authority on 26 August, to proceed to the aid of a vessel in distress. The Tampa was guided by an Australian aircraft, with call sign Coastwatch 583. Information taken from a Norwegian press release at <http://odin.dep.no/ud/norsk/aktuelt/pressem/032091-070082/index-dok000-b-n- a.html> More details are available from Sydney Morning Herald at <http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/01/review/review2.html> The Sydney Morning Herald report is appalling reading. A couple of points. According to this report, the Tampa was originally instructed by Indonesian rescue authorities (who had responsibility for the region) to proceed to Merak. (The rescue authorities themselves show up very well in the whole drama.) When the Tampa was considering diverting to the closer port of Christmas Island, she first contacted Australian Search and Rescue again; and was advised that the ship's master had final say in the matter of destination. The Tampa then advised they would proceed to Christmas Island, and this was accepted without question; the master being directed to proceed and then to hold hold offshore awaiting customs officials. The contrary instruction denying permission to enter Australian waters only came much later, when the Tampa was only half an hour out from being in our territory, and after the politicians had got involved rather than the rescue authority. If you find further information on the events themselves, I also would be interested in details. [snip] >> > The captain was reported as being under a great deal of duress. >> >> By Ruddock. His crew put it rather differently. They said he was >> calm and collected throughout, and acted at all times as he saw >> fit for the safety of his ship and people she carried. > > He also lied about the condition of the illegals, even saying that some were > dying, and there were women in labour etc., This is open to dispute. I do not think he said people were dying; and I have heard no report to that effect. He reported ten people unconscious, and two pregnant women with stomach cramps. >> There is no suggestion that the captain was actually forced to >> do anything. Desperate people threatening to jump overboard is >> certainly a way of applying pressure; but calling it "duress" >> is Ruddock's little excess. > > Are you a friggin expert or something?? Were you there??? No. But that does not stop any of us from attempting to form a reasonable opinion on the matter. Ruddock was not there either -- so why accept his term "duress"? It seems from information available that what took place does not fit the category of duress as I understand the term. >> The captain was also pressured by >> Indonesia apparently threatening to actively repulse any attempt >> to land. Quite likely he thought Australia would be more >> sympathetic. >> >> We used to have that reputation. >> >> In comparison with Indonesia, I think we still do, but only just. > > Yeah right.. we threatened to blow them outa the water did we? No, of course not. Neither did Indonesia, actually; though they did apparently threaten to fire on the vessel, according to some reports. This is pretty sick; and though our international reputation for tolerance has certainly suffered a blow, I would guess (and hope) that internationally most people recognize that Indonesia's conduct has been even worse. [snip] >> > Consider the long-term, when does the line get drawn? >> >> Somewhere on the other side of refusing to let a freighter unload >> people she rescued on the high seas at our request. >> >> I think the major effort needs to be diplomacy with Indonesia, and >> attempting to set up co-operative actions to deal with the flow at >> the source, before they set to sea. A more expensive and much less >> efficient method is unilateral patrols to turn back ships at sea. >> >> But I don't think we should actually sink ships, or refuse to aid >> vessels in distress, or be anything less than enthusiastically >> magnanimous to those who have effected rescues on our behalf. >> >> Once a ship lands in Australia, legal or illegal, I would like >> compassion to take precedence, and for us to accept responsibility >> for the people on our shores. This does not mean simply granting >> residency. The flow of refugees involved is not large, by >> international standards; and it never will be. > > What an idiot you are. Do you have a bible quote for that as > well?? What is it per head of population compared to elsewhere. How > many countries do these ppl pass over to get here. Ask yourself > why. Because of idiots like you that's why. Can we try and discuss this without such insults, please? The reason the flow will never be large, by international standards, is because of the geography involved. I do not have a bible reference for that. Where refugees are able to walk, the numbers are generally greater. The number of illegals currently arriving in Australia is roughly 5000 per year at present. >> I also think the line should not be drawn against all illegals; >> some of the people who arrive illegally on our shores are people >> who need and deserve our help to find a new home. > > So what value Australian law if you condone illegality? I do not personally think it devalues Australian law to recognize that there are such things as genuine refugees fleeing real political persecution and personal danger, and that such refugees can be found also amongst the illegal arrivals on our shores. I do not think it devalues Australian law to recognize that some illegal arrivals are people who genuinely need and deserve our help. In fact, Australian law generally takes this into account, and will in fact allow refugee status, and residency, to be granted to people determined to be genuine refugees according to some standard, even if they have arrived illegally. >> Thanks for a calm response: I trust I have responded in kind! >> >> Best wishes -- Chris > > Pathetic bleeding heart moron. Settle down a bit, Peter. We can disagree and discuss the subject without being nasty. Best wishes -- Chris
top of page