Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 7, 2012 at 3:58pm

Very appropriate Jan. Would the words sound as good to the tune Waltzing Matilda???

Kind regards

Caroline 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 8, 2012 at 10:28am

Well we thought that there had been no boats en route to Australia over the past couple of days. Not so! A boat carrying 31 people on board was intercepted and boarded by Australian authorities on Friday. I guess that reporters are of the opinion that such news is no longer worth reporting as it is such a frequent event.

For those keeping score since the PM has been overseeing illegal boat arrivals, 206 boats and over 13,600 people have arrived on her watch.

Tony Abbott this morning said that they would turn the boats around and escort them back to Indonesia. My question is would Indonesia accept them and would we have a repeat of where the boat people would not leave the boat once it arrived in Indonesia? Perhaps Stephen would be able to shed some light on Maritime Laws relating to turning the boats around and if legally the Indonesians were duty bound to accept the boat load of people.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vivienne skeen on July 8, 2012 at 11:06am

Hi Caroline

I wonder if this is the boat Bolt talked about this morning, as not quite into open waters before they contacted the RAN and eventually boarded the Navy ship, as the Navy apparently gave up the argument?

Dr Caroline Wright said:

Well we thought that there had been no boats en route to Australia over the past couple of days. Not so! A boat carrying 31 people on board was intercepted and boarded by Australian authorities on Friday. I guess that reporters are of the opinion that such news is no longer worth reporting as it is such a frequent event.

For those keeping score since the PM has been overseeing illegal boat arrivals, 206 boats and over 13,600 people have arrived on her watch.

Tony Abbott this morning said that they would turn the boats around and escort them back to Indonesia. My question is would Indonesia accept them and would we have a repeat of where the boat people would not leave the boat once it arrived in Indonesia? Perhaps Stephen would be able to shed some light on Maritime Laws relating to turning the boats around and if legally the Indonesians were duty bound to accept the boat load of people.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 8, 2012 at 11:22am

I don't know Vivienne but perhaps someone one else on Just Grounds will know.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on July 8, 2012 at 1:31pm

Ladies,  this may answer your question.:

 

ANOTHER boatload of Sri Lankan asylum seekers, this time 31 men and one girl, have made the long journey from home to Christmas Island.

The 32 passengers were transferred from their small fishing vessel to the island’s Flying Fish Cove this morning after their boat was intercepted late yesterday.

 

They are the latest in a surge of asylum seeker arrivals which is seeing boats being intercepted almost every day and, in some cases, twice daily.

 

Yesterday 38 Iraqi men, along with four Indonesian crew, were transferred to the island from Customs vessel the ACV Triton. The group had been on the Triton since last Friday when their asylum boat was intercepted at Ashmore Islands.

 

On Thursday, 162 Middle Eastern asylum seekers arrived after being picked up by the Navy on Wednesday when they claimed their vessel was in distress about 50 nautical miles south of Indonesia. The passengers were told to return to Indonesia but they refused.

 

The latest arrival this morning means passengers from 25 boats have arrived in Australia since Friday June 8.

 

There are around 1400 asylum seekers in various detention facilities on the island and the latest surge has seen the Federal Government attempt to reduce numbers by increasing charter flights to mainland detention centres.

 

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the arrival showed people smugglers were continuing to take advantage of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's refusal to act to restore the coalition's border protection policies.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/in-one-month-25-boats-a...

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 8, 2012 at 2:07pm

Thanks Jan that has solved the problem. I knew someone would be able to help and you were.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 8, 2012 at 2:30pm

I have been thinking about some of the new Discussion Topics of late, for example, homelessness, agism/ageism, asylum seekers literally by the boat load, and the Government asking people to open their homes for refugees and paying them over $140 per week for this service and it started me thinking...

This latest policy of housing for ?refugees is a dicriminatory practice. Would the Government pay home owner to house one homeless person and assist them to get back on their feet? If not then it is dicrimination.

Is there anyone else who thinks the same?

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on July 8, 2012 at 2:48pm

Caroline,  I like to read as much in the papers as I can online.  We buy one every day, but they all seem to differ slightly on their opinions of the same topic.

 

Your last post -  Hmmm.    Good question ! 

1.  I wonder if people would accept the homeless into their homes, as they are often rather grubby and unkempt ?

 

2.  Would the homeless want to be billeted with families doing it just for the money ?

 

3.  YES -  I do think the policy IS discriminatory.  However,  I think Aussie homeless should be first in line for public housing rather than being billeted.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 8, 2012 at 3:34pm

• But they could probably challenge the legality of same through Legal Aide.
• Also if some were so inclined and could be signed up for temporary home stay through the Salvation Army where they could be 'cleaned up' first it may be a possibility.

Kind regards
Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on July 9, 2012 at 9:56am

Speaking about the legality of various situations,  I received this via email this morning.

 

 

If someone was assaulting you and you defended yourself causing the death of the person assaulting you, chances are you'd rightly use the defence of 'self defence'.  (Have retreated as far as possible in the fact in the matter of defence of a person- Regina vs ..  However, if you went home and returned to the scene with a weapon and killed the person who assaulted you......It's almost a foregone conclusion, you'd probably be charged with murder.   Now let’s take the case of the so called 'poor refugees'.   According to my 'Oxford Dictionary' a refugee is someone who 'Escaped to a foreign country from religious or political persecution'.    Lets take the case of a Muslim escaping from 'where-ever'. They enter Indonesia legally (they are now in a country where their religion is widely practiced). They have escaped from their own country and are now in a country where they are not being hounded for their political or religious beliefs............They're home,  they are refugees living in Indonesia.   They decide to leave the sanctuary of Indonesia (remember they are refugees and they entered Indonesia legally). They destroy all their papers, pay big money to jump on a boat and come to the 'lucky country AUSTRALIA' without any papers; upon arrival in Australia they receive all sorts of handouts from the government and if the paint in the refugee camps not the right colour, they can get some arsehole lawyer (on legal aid) to sue the government on their behalf because the colour is effecting their eyesight. But hang on a minute, what are they escaping from, they are in Indonesia. No one is persecuting them for their religion, no one is persecuting them for their political beliefs; they are safe; why would they want to run away from a country that practices their beliefs? Why would they want to go to a country that practices Christian beliefs when they don't want anything to have to do with it? My gut feeling is: The moment those people step on the boats in Indonesia, they have chosen to 'throw their refugee status away' (they were/are safe in that country). They also chose to break Indonesia's immigration laws by not filling departure forms in (you and I have to). I'd like to know why, upon arrival in Australia, are those 'so-called-refugees' not charged with being 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' and thrown on the first available flight out of the country. Remember they 'were' refugees whilst they were in Indonesia, they then chose to get rid of their papers; they chose to leave the country that had given them shelter; they chose to pay someone to transport them to Australia; they chose to get on a boat.   But above all they chose to leave the country that gave them sanctuary 'INDONESIA'. Why is it, honest hard working Australians have to pay taxes to keep those illegal immigrants (not refugees) in comfort while some do-gooder lawyer makes money out of the situation by trying to sue the government, to get more money for those ‘illegal’s’ who shouldn't be in this country in the first place.         WAKE UP AUSTRALIA, THEY ARE 'NOT' REFUGEES, THEY ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 9, 2012 at 1:28pm

Oh my goodness Jan.....It all makes so much sense and comes to a legal and logical conclusion. Who should we send it to?? Thanks heaps for posting it here.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 9, 2012 at 4:04pm

I have sent an e-mail to Tony Abbott re the information above. I did not send it to the Greens because I think that they would just ignore it as it does not suit them.

Kind regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 147
• Next ›
• Page