How Low Can You Go?

PNG has substantial problems of its own with West Papuan Refugees – and limited administrative capacity to deal with its own development issues – this is neo-colonialism – but it makes Australia vulnerable to developments their.

The Brits until recently welcomed large numbers of certain ethnicities to their shores and as a result:

(a) they now need a dedicated police Forced Marriage Unit that deals with 1,500 forced marriage cases each year
(b) certain parts of London are patrolled by Muslim gangs who target scantily clad women, gays etc for a bashing while targetting white women for religiously motivated rape (akin to the Islamic rape squad that terrorised Sydney a few years back, only on a much grander scale),
(c) individuals who speak out against Islamic excesses have been subject to Fatwahs (Rushdie etc …) and must now live with the constant threat of being murdered, and
(d) 312 mostly Muslim persons including many “refugees” and children of refugees have been convicted of terror rated offences since 9/11 while hundreds more await trial.

I think many Australians, including slightly left of centre ones such as myself, have have seen what has happened OS and have made the prudent decision to oppose allowing the same to happen hear.

It isn’t racist or xenophobic to want to protect one’s family from the clash of cultures horror show that now infects much of Western Europe.

Gummo try some bi carb. Moral indignation often leads to reflux problems. But instead of telling us how indignant (and, incidentally, how very moral) you are what do you propose doing? Labor’s policy has been a shambles and has created a severe problem. Rudd’s current policy is regrettable mainly because past Labor policies listened excessively to people who suffered reflux problems with the policy of John Howard. At least that policy worked and 1000 people would now be alive had it been kept in place.

Read a bit about the scale of the displaced persons problem (although take the antacid first):

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/29462/

and tell us all how would you select from the 4 million or so extra people seeking resettlement each year. Take them all in Australia? Encourage the US to take more than its current 50,000 intake? Double Australia’s planned intake so it equals the US total intake? Be selective and allow those who apply with visas to get first shot? Or put people to the front of the queue who attempt entries without visas?

Of course you might instead tear out your hair and grind your teeth. That can often be helpful.

This “solution” is probably illegal and in due time the High Court will so find it, and I expect Mr Rudd knows this. So we will probably end up taking these people but not until long after the election. Of course Mr Abbott (and his foul minion Scott Morrison) has been similarly playing this game of proposing “solutions” of dubious legality (and even worse morality) in the sure knowledge that he won’t be called to account for them until its too late for the mug voters.

It’s a cynical move by Rudd, but he may be privately justifying it to himself by saying not many people will actually be greatly hurt by this. Sincerely christian politicians get good at the casuistry they need to be politically successful while staying christian, and I reckon Kevin and the Mad Monk are both well practised at this. They know the sermon on the mount has fine principles, but no-one was ever elected on a platform of implementing them.

Gummo, it seems to most of your fellow citizens that the more ‘humanitarian’ our refugee system in relation to boat arrivals, the more people die.

Howard’s Nauru solution was largely a band-aid and largely didn’t ‘work’ in terms of avoiding resettlement. But it worked in terms of reducing boat numbers.

Rudd Mk I’s policy didn’t work, on any metric. Most obviously, it didn’t work on a humanitarian metric.

If you wish to think of Rudd as a moral agent, what would you do in his place? It isn’t worth much to vomit about something that you can’t imagine doing better, so I imagine you have a better plan.

Remember, Rudd is only able to directly affect Australia, so his sphere of action (no matter what he might sometimes think) in your hypothetical needs to be confined to things Australia can do.

I am incensed by this constant pejorative against Papua New Guinea by people who clearly get their information fror Murdoch Tabloids. Actually Papua New Guinea is a grand place to live, the people are friendly and kind to others less fortunate. 75% are subsistence farmers and fishers. Better people you will not meet. I am incensed about all the talk of “hellholes”. The press only paints the hyperbolic worst cases which is not good for PNG but once outside POM you meet the real people of the countryside you will be amazed at our understanding of life, the outside world and our generosity of spirit. I doubt that there will ever be 3000 people on Manus seeking refuge but if there were I could only think of a couple of nicer places to be – the islands of Milne Bay.

Marks above:

When one party in a dispute advances snark from an entrenched position in lieu of reasoned argument, it only helps the opposition. But you know that, I suspect, which says much about the sincerity of your position.

What a lovely bit of ad hominem.

You asked: “What’s wrong with PNG?” – a question easily answerable by anyone with an internet connection and a working brain, at least one of which you clearly have.

The demand for easily found evidence is a tired, tired old rhetorical trick and rejecting it says nothing about sincerity.