Media Release
Kevin ‘Judas’ Rudd’s Shameless Betrayal
Mr Rudd’s sudden conversion to support homosexual marriage, on the road to the federal election, is betrayal upon betrayal, according to the Australian Christian Values Institute (ACVI). The newly released Christian Values Checklist shows that Labor, under Mr Rudd, has embraced the Green’s moral decadence and betrayed its working class constituency.
A spokesperson for the ACVI and the Christian Values Checklist, John Miller, said, “Mr Rudd has sadly earned the nickname of Judas.”
“He has betrayed the institution of marriage that has existed for millennia, he has betrayed the broad Christian lobby who he assiduously romanced in the lead up to the 2007 election, and who helped him to defeat John Howard, he has betrayed the message of the Bible, which he knows well, and he has betrayed the many members of his own caucus who he knows are strongly and conscientiously opposed to same sex marriage.”
Mr Miller said, “The biblical Judas was quickly remorseful about what he did, but the political Mr Rudd is shameless in his betrayal. If Mr Rudd exemplifies Christian values in a politician then bring on the atheists with a moral conscience.”
Read more at the Australian Christian Values Institute
Signposts 02 
What nothing about Rudd and Abbott’s play off to see who can be the biggest prick to refugees.
Sod the lot of em.
I’ll vote for the Greens.
Bones abandons Socialism for out and out Marxism.
In fact the major parties have generally had reasonable and fair refugee and migrant policies.
What you are talking about as unjust is the increased burden of economic migration through illegal means. It has been long established that the majority of people claiming refugee status have paid large sums of money to first of all get to embarkation points in Indonesia, and then access offers made by unscrupulous people smugglers who are the illicit dealers of human cargo into a dangerous journey in overcrowded, unseaworthy vessels.
Bones supports this risky business and would like t see the people smugglers fortunes increased by rewarding them for sending people into he oceans in leaky boats.
He was happy with Rudd when he first came into power because he stopped the program which stopped the boats, opening the floodgates to over 50,000 people who survived the oceans, and 1,000 who didn’t.
He hated Howard’s harsh policies which stopped the boats and saved countless lives and kept the borders open to people who ere genuine refugees coming from the many camps, and many of whom are now citizens of Australia.
Now he wants to keep the borders open to all and sundry to come into Australia without visas, passports, evidence of nationality, persecution or, importantly, possible criminal activities in lands some of them may come from as escapees. Banes wants no vetting, no checking, no accountability to his immigration policies.
Rudd, when he became PM for the second time, woke up to the fact that he had ruined an effective measure in keeping the borders closed to smugglers and open to genuine asylum seekers, and, to save him from harsh criticism in the build up to the coming election, decided to support Howards’ effective policies after all, albeit too late, because he had given the smugglers enough momentum to seize upon other opportunities ways of forcing the Australian government to process boat people off-shore.
So, rather than voting for the conservatives he hates, who have a track record of solving these problems, Bones will opt for the Marxists and prohibitionists who were complicit in arguably the worse ever Australian Government in our history under Gillard, who cut deals with them which we will pay for for generations.
Maybe, when the Greens have legalised ganja and euthanasia, Bones will spend his last days as he approaches the cut off time of 60 (saves on pension schemes), out of it on the weed in some street café at Nimbin.
The Party of Principle…
THE Greens risk a backlash from many of their supporters after forging a controversial preference deal with mining magnate Clive Palmer.
Despite calling for a ban on new coal mines, the Greens have quietly announced they will put the Palmer United Party ahead of Labor and the Coalition in a raft of lower house seats.
The Senate balance of power party has also ironed out a Senate preference deal with Mr Palmer – a move designed to help South Australian Greens’ Senator Sarah Hanson-Young win her seat.
Greens Immigration spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. (Pic: Ray Strange)
The controversial preference swap comes just days after Tony Abbott announced plans to put the Greens last on Liberal Party how to vote cards.
Greens’ campaign co-convener Ben Spies-Butcher said the actions by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott on asylum seekers makes this a “defining issue” at the election.
This has led the Greens to place the Palmer United Party ahead of the Liberals in the Senate and before both major parties in some lower house seats.
“Clive Palmer’s support for further coal expansion remains anathema to the Greens, unfortunately it is support matched by the old parties,” Mr Spies-Butcher said.
Senator Hanson-Young is struggling to retain her South Australian seat against a strong showing by independent Nick Xenophon.
Senior SA political figures believe Senator Xenophon could pick up two Senate seats – squeezing out his Greens’ rival.
Last night, he hit out at the deal with Mr Palmer. “This is desperate stuff – the Greens and a mining magnate doing a deal together,” Senator Xenophon said.
On its official campaign website, the Greens slam the “old parties” over their support for coal mining.
“Labor has never said no to a coal mine expansion or coal seam gas project, and plans to massively increase coal exports through the Reef, as does the Coalition,” the Greens site said.
“They also give billions of dollars each year to big mining companies to find and burn more fossil fuels; this tilts the field against clean energy and a safe climate.”
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/mining-magnate-clive-palmer-and-the-greens-in-election-deal/story-fnho52ip-1226699523115#ixzz2cQAEjSS9
It’s interesting how the Greens call the Labour and Liberal Parties the ‘old’ parties, isn’t it. This is to attempt to make the Greens seem youthful to the young vote which has been brainwashed for decades in left-run public school systems, prepped by socialists in their nihilistic worldview.
But, first of all, the Greens are as old as the hills. Ancient as the National Socialists of the post WW1 Germany. The only thing new about them is the Green tag.
And, secondly, Australian Labour is the real new party, being, since 2007, the Kevin Rudd party. They tries to shake him off, but Julia Gillard had championed so much of what he originated, and he was so self-absorbed and bent on revenge, posing as the saviour of the party, that he has wheedled his way back in, and it’s all about Kevin again.
Bill Shorten’s face these days, says it all. As would Greg Combet’s, if he could stand to be on the same platform as Rudd.
It’s more important for Labour for Rudd to suffer a heavy defeat at this election than most Labour Party affectionados realise.
But the Greens are the worse thing to have happened to politics since 1933.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged!”
John howard is now posting under another name.
Blame those evil boat people that will get you some votes.
I wonder if mary and joseph entered Egypt legally or paid a people smuggler.
There are 3 points here.
Firstly, if you were TRULY a Christian, you wouldn’t be getting involved in political activity – of any description. If you are going to call yourself a Christian, Steve, that means that you have to live by the teachings. What did Jesus say on the matter?
Secondly, it says in the Bible many things. It says that its OK “to own slaves”, It says that “a rapist must marry his [victim]”, It says “not to touch pig skin” (Try telling that to a footballer who plays footy every weekend – hahaha). Then we can talk about what Jesus has to say about the divorce laws. Bur curiously you are silent on this matter. Then if you want to get down to the ‘nitty-gritty’, there are indeed 3 versions of the Ten Commandments – Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5 & Deuteronomy 34. At least one of these versions include the eleventh Commandment “Thou shall not boil a kid [a young goat] in milk”. So here’s the question, Steve. which version are you going to adopt?
Thirdly, I’m not a homosexual and I know very few people who identify as homosexual, so this is NOT a defence of homosexuals OR homosexuality. This IS being objective!!! The law forbidding same-sex marriage IS discrimination. Here’s why.
As a society we wouldn’t forbid two (2) persons to get married on the basis of their age, on the basis of their religious beliefs, on the basis of their ethnicity, on the basis of their income, on the basis of their height, weight or complexion, on the basis of their political beliefs, NOT on any other basis by which to define a human being, so NOR can we forbid people to marry on the basis of their gender.
Damian, ‘judge not’ as in ‘condemn not’. You make decisions all the time, otherwise you couldn’t function. You have to determine what is right or wrong. The context of the scripture you produced is condemnation, not determination.
This doesn’t mean we stop thinking and make choices in elections. Voting is compulsory in Australia. We have to make a choice. We have to make assessments of policies.
Bones, you didn’t read or understand what I wrote or you wouldn’t have made such unintelligent comments.
‘Blame those evil boat people that will get you some votes.’
What a typically vile and ignorant statement that is. You know the problem yet burt=y your head in the sand as if it doesn’t exist. Which is exactly what the Labour Party, and, in particular, Kevin Rudd did for years. Did his solution work? No. It undid everything which stopped the boats.
Now there is an unmanageable maritime disaster off the shores of Australia and you don’t care.
There is a migration program run by people smugglers and you want to vote them into power.
You come out with this false air of superiority of moral indignation about people who, it has been shown, have to produce tens of thousands of dollars to get into Indonesia and unto boats for Australia, and, thus, displace the thousands of genuine refugees who go through the correct channels to get into the safety of the country.
You are there on the harbour-side at Indonesian fishing ports putting people, including children, on unseaworthy boats, overcrowded, without insurance, without visas, without passports, without permission to enter Australia, people who have already landed safely in another country away form the place they left, whether it be genuinely war-torn or not. You are there pushing more of them unto the unlicensed fishing boats for money, for financial gain.
If they are in another land, albeit Indonesia, why aren’t they given safe haven there? Why aren’t they satisfied to have been accepted there? Why are they seeking asylum in Australia hen hey have already achieved it?
Why are you rejecting the thousands of people in camps in Egypt and the like who have applied for refugee status in the legal, correct manner?
Why are you rejecting people who genuinely do not have any money, who have lost everything, real refugees who have nothing to pay the people smugglers to bring them to Australia?
I worked with refugees in Australia for several years, and helped many come to Australia the right way, the safe way, working with authorities and refugee agencies, helping them settle, even financing some in various ways. I have worked in the last year with UK migrants, many refugees, to find them jobs through education and training. There are right ways and wrong ways to enter these countries.
Your indignation is mere empty words based on a misguided political opportunism, like the political party you now espouse.
Stop the boats and you stop the problem. Let those people come in the same way genuine refugees come. Australia has a good record with immigration and refugee acceptance. Why should people smugglers call the tune? It is our government which should decide who comes in, not some uncaring people smuggler who doesn’t give a rip if they cross the sea or die in it as long as he gets his thirty pieces of silver.
Now even Rudd, the ultimate political opportunist and populist policy maker knows it, and now he has to do something about it, but he’s messed it up so much he’s let the horse bolt and it’ll be hard to catch and tether again.
I’m not a against refugees or immigration, which have made Australia a great country to live in, just against helping profiteers benefit from the plight of desperate people.
Dave Black.
First of all, I haven’t commented on the post because it is so dumb.
I did not author the Post. It was put up by wazza. Perhaps you should direct your comments on gays and gay marriage to him. He was just stirring the pot as usual. The post is a waste of time.
I was responding to Bones’ decision to vote for the Greens and the problem of people who pay thousands to come to Australia in people smuggler’s boats claiming asylum.
Secondly, your understanding of Christianity is obviously flawed. We are not of the Old Testament, which you quote from, but of the New. The law no longer applies to Christians. We are not under law, but under grace.
Thirdly, footballers no longer use pigs bladders!
Finally, no one is discussing any of the subjects you brought up anyway.
You said,
“As a society we wouldn’t forbid two (2) persons to get married on the basis of their age, on the basis of their religious beliefs, on the basis of their ethnicity, on the basis of their income, on the basis of their height, weight or complexion, on the basis of their political beliefs, NOT on any other basis by which to define a human being, so NOR can we forbid people to marry on the basis of their gender.”
On the basis of their age? Well you can’t marry without special permission if you’re under 18, actually. That’s why couples have to produce proof of age, i.e., Birth Certificate, passport, for the Celebrant before they can be married.
You see, there are rules, very strict rules, to marriage in Australia. The Attorney General’s Office will not let anything go by. It is all checked. I know. I was a Celebrant.
On the bass of their gender? Well that is true to an extent, because both males and females can marry, obviously, and there are only two genders, David, male or female.
But, according to Australian law, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, so a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman.
Is that discrimination? Not according to the law. It is perfectly sensible and well worded. It would only be discrimination if marriage were not so defined.
In every ceremony the Celebrant has to tell the witnesses and couple the definition of marriage I just gave you. It is law.
In UK that law has been changed to include same sex marriage. It will be interesting to see how they have worded the definition, because I do not see how there cannot be a number of anomalies arise when it is produced if there is same gender union.
Incidentally, Dave, we live in a democracy. In our democracy, as I told Damian, we have to vote in our elections. It is compulsory. I am overseas, but I have registered to vote as a postal voter.
The Bible says we have to follow the law of the land we are in. Nowhere does it stipulate that we cannot vote in an election or be involved in politics. Some of the greatest politicians an law makers have been Christians.
I think you are confusing the US Constitution which says that the Church should be separate from the State, which is an entirely different thing, and which actually means the State is constitutionally prevented from creating a State religion which dominates all religion. It doesn’t mean that Christians or people of other religions cannot be involved in politics or vote or lobby politicians.
The UK has a State religion called the Church of England, but allows other religions freedom to gather and promote themselves. The Queen is the Defender of the faith, meaning the Church of England. The Parliament is able to make decisions which influence the Church, but generally the Church of England runs things form its own Synod, or Parliament.
It has just made a decision which allows gays t marry, but exempts the Church of England. So gays can marry, but not in a Church of England church. Churches outside the Church of England which ‘opt in’ can marry gays.
Australia is a secular democracy, which means there is no interference by churches in the government or by government in the churches, but neither is there a State Church. People are free to gather and conduct religious activities without fear of interference from the State.
Churches do not have specific government directed church oriented laws governing them, but come under the not-for-profit sector, which requires them to be run in specific ways much on the same way sports and social clubs are run, including audits and constitutions etc..
The only reason churches are registered with the government is under the Marriage Act 1961to be able to marry people according to the rights of their denomination, but the government has no power over churches except in setting standards for marriage according to the rights of individual denominations.
Individuals, whether Christian or not, have to vote in elections, although it is possible to get around this of course, and some religions, like JWs refuse to vote, but it is in the interests of the Church to be involved in the decision making and law making processes of the nation, and the only way to do this is to be politically involved in some way, even if it is only to vote for the local politician who most closely produces policies which they support.
Steves taken up the tony abbott mantra. We must stop the boats.
Of course if people smugglers were smuggling jews theyd get to plant a tree in jerusalem.
Instead they’re helping these evil queue jumpers.
Its symptomatic of bigoted beliefs and a fear of people who are different.
Actually, we do discriminate marriage based upon age. The discrimation ends when both participants are aged 18 and over but if one or more of the participants is under, they need a court order/parental consent. If they are much under, nope.
That article shows only that the so called Christian Values Institute, and I love how these wack job ultra right groups like to give themselves names that make them look larger and far more important than they really are, is representative of only Bill and Mavis from the Church of the Latter Day Only Us and Not Them Bible Teaching and World Damning Church of the Ultra True and Righteous Believers
Bones thinks the sensible solution is to keep the boats coming.
It was Bob Carr, and ultra left marxist socialist, who determined for Gillard and now Rudd that the majority of the passengers are economic migrants. He paved the way for Rudd to take a more hard line approach after years of saying they were genuine refugees, having realised how much it costs these people to take the huge risk of travelling from their points of origin to Indonesia and then to Australia.
Bones wants to increase this intake. He would like to see more people crowded into camps on the tiny heat traps and mosquito riven islands of Nauru and Manus. He thinks its a good thing to send the economic refugees, who are mostly Muslim, into the 90% Christian Papua New Guinea, where it is constitutionally a Christian nation.
Bones hates Jews so much he had to make a spiteful comment about them even tough they’re not the issue.
In fact Jews are already being absorbed into their own homeland and being welcomed by Israel by the thousand despite the small size of the country. Any migrants who have come to Australia in the past came through the correct channels.
No one is saying refugees should not come here, nor asylum seekers. But paying the people smugglers fortunes to send people in unsafe vessels across the sea is not compassionate, Bones.
Your politics are warped if you think you can support the Greens.
It’s a pity the Islamic nations are less willing to take in Muslim refugees into their countries. Oh, wait a minute, several of them are going through civil war between sunni and shia.
Bones, in a fit of stupidity,
Its symptomatic of bigoted beliefs and a fear of people who are different.
As I have already said, I have worked to assist genuine refugees settle and find work in two nations. The issue isn’t genuine asylum seekers, nor refugees. The issue is the means of passage.
As you said, the people crossing from Indonesia in unsafe boats are ‘queue jumpers’. You seem to think this is acceptable.
Your moral ethics are so left of centre you can’t even see what Bob Carr and now, as matter of political expedience, what Rudd has seen, that most of the people on the boats are merely aspirational migrants rather than genuine refugees who have nothing and have fled persecution. They enter illegally with no passports, no visas, no health checks, no criminal record checks, no papers, and you think this, on the large scale we are seeing is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged.
Are you saying that stopping the boats will not solve the problem, or that it is no a problem to allow anyone and everyone to come in unsafe boats from Indonesia?
You see, you, like the misguided labour Party of the last few years, and the Greens of today, have attempted to take the moral high ground with your miss-placed and hollow compassion, but you haven’t carefully thought out the consequences of your logic.
You attempt to say that those of us who prefer safe borders are not compassionate about refugees because we would like to prevent the people smugglers form running our customs and immigration departments for us.
In fact, we welcome migrants, and especially those who are genuine refugees. But we would like them to be processed off-shore to determine that they are, indeed, refugees and persecuted and in need of our assistance.
We work with the UN who are monitoring refugees and making recommendations about the generous intake we have committed to, which is the third highest per capita in the world.
We think it is safer to fly refugees in on legally acquired visas and bring them through our borders than to let people come in unsafe, overcrowded fishing vessels which are potentially going to be scuttled at sea with passengers still on board to push the navy into rescuing them and having to allow the maritime agreement to then deliver them to our shores.
We think this method is a form of blackmail by the smugglers and the passengers who agree to it.
You would like to vote for the people smugglers and their money-making schemes.
We would like to bring thousands of refugees into Australia by safe and legal means.
“Firstly, if you were TRULY a Christian, you wouldn’t be getting involved in political activity – of any description.”
……………………….
That’s funny.
that is a patently false statement.
So much for boat people being economic refugees…but Steve would never let the facts get in the way of his version of the world.
This fact sheet on refugees may help you understand a bit more Steve.
Click to access asylumfacts.pdf
You’re right we should be stopping the boats, by supplying safe passage from Indonesia!
If you look at their Christian Values Checklist, they have absolutely nothing about social justice, fairness, charity or even such basics as caring for others eg in education, health or aged care.
These are the so-called ‘Christian Values’ that they think are important in choosing who you should vote for :
1. Continue to open parliament each day with Christian prayer
2. Support traditional family values and teach our Christian heritage in schools
3. Support equitable funding for Christian and Private schools
4. Family impact statement on bills tabled publically before vote in parliament
5. Reduce divorce – provide free pre-marriage education for couples
6. Help children – promote and support marriage over de facto co-habitation
7. Help children – support presumption of equal parenting after divorce
8. Protect vulnerable people – euthanasia to remain illegal
9. Life is precious – oppose overseas aid for abortion
10. Oppose Medicare funding for gender selected abortion
11. Protect marriage & the future of our children – reject ‘homosexual marriage’
12. Support marriage – oppose homosexual civil unions & relationship registers
13. Protect children – no overseas adoption by homosexual couples
14. Protect free speech – oppose vilification laws – they limit free speech
15. Keep liberty – allow religious bodies the freedom to choose their employees
16. Increased funding for drug harm prevention & abstinence based programs
17. Extend States ban on X-rated pornography to ACT & NT
18. Protect our children – support ISP opt-out Internet filtering of pornography
19. Stop the deaths of refugees at sea – support legitimate orderly immigration
20. Reject carbon pricing – no benefit to families or environment
21. Support greater care of God’s environment
Gee what about overseas aid, is that a Christian value?
… Helping the poor, is that a Christian value?
reg,
You’re right we should be stopping the boats, by supplying safe passage from Indonesia!
Are you saying there’s something wrong with Indonesia? Since they have arrived there, why don’t they settle there. They have achieved asylum in a democratic nation. Why would they want to emigrate from Indonesia to Australia?
But perhaps Greg has a point. Maybe they can make Indonesia an off-shore check point, and the asylum seekers there could join the queue of asylum seekers and refugees seeking entry into Australia, although they’d have to give added grounds for wanting to leave Indonesia once accepted there.
As I have said, I am personally all for helping as many genuine asylum seekers and refugees as we can. If 90% are genuine, then that is a good thing.
But we do need to have control of our borders, and we do need to be able to say who comes in and who doesn’t.
Maybe you don’t see people smugglers as opportunists making a fast buck at the expense of desperate people but as deeply caring humanitarians helping people find a better life.
I just don’t see how it helps to vote for the Greens.
“They have achieved asylum in a democratic nation. Why would they want to emigrate from Indonesia to Australia?”
because they havent achieved asylum in a democratic nation. Indonesia, while a democracy, is not a signatory to the refugee convention.
http://theconversation.com/not-our-problem-the-indonesian-perspective-on-asylum-seekers-8053
You can save us all a lot of time and improve the quality of the debate if you do a little googling before typing.
wazza,
“(Indonesia is not a) democratic nation…it is a democracy;”
By the way, wazza, you talk about improving the quality of the debate having posted the stupid article in the first place.
Yeah, right!
You notice no one is actually addressing he article you posted, and the conversation has gone to a completely different subject, which you have now added to. LOL!
Dear Lord, you quoted from The Conversation!
Now there’s an unbiased commentary! Not!
I guess that makes you a socialist too! No self-respecting centrist would bother with anything more extreme than the ABC! It makes The Age look like a right wing rag!
Credibility, wazza, credibility!
The point is … do I have to spell it out ………. they havent been granted asylum in Indonesia!!!!!!
Why is it a stupid article, Steve?
There’s nothing centrist about the refugee debate. It’s pandering to the extreme Right. The Libs tried to make it an election issue ala Tampa. The ALP responded by making even more draconian promises to out toughen the Libs.
Malcolm Fraser accepted many boat people from Vietnam, Thousands more than we get now without detention centres. It was actually the Socialists who were against migration. It’s a reason he resigned his membership from the Libs and was supporting Greens senator Hansen.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your hatred of others.
Abbott and Rudd can both f**k off and any other self righteous dick masquerading as a Christian but who is no more than Tony Abbott’s mouthpiece.
Malcolm Fraser on Coalition asylum plans: no limits to the inhumanity
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser speaks to Guardian Australia about a “breach of common decency”
There are no limits to which the opposition will not go to demonstrate inhumanity to people with a significantly demonstrated need. [This is] inhumanity demonstrated against some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
This is a total reversal of some of the values Australia had become renowned for. It saddens me to think that the Liberal party, and as I understand it also the Labor party, are thinking of additional ways to make their policies more brutal.
The policies have become so unreal, so inhumane overall, it’s very hard to look at just one aspect, which increases the uncaring nature of the opposition. The terrible thing is that the opposition and the government both believe they can win votes by behaving in this way.
I don’t really believe they can.
I believe these steps have gone so far that people will be looking for alternatives to voting for either Liberal or Labor.
Neither of them deserves to win. Neither of them deserves to govern. Certainly neither of them deserves to have control of both houses of parliament.
I hope it [the policy] would [be subject to a high court challenge] I can’t make a judgment to the law in relation to that, but one of the aspects of the policy as I heard it was that there’s not going to be any appeal, that one person is going to make a judgment that asylum seeker’s claims are valid or invalid, and as I heard it that was the end of it.
No appeal. No judicial review. So the Liberal party, having demonstrated its intent, I would have thought that they would be very careful in the people they chose to make that decision, so that they would have a very large number judged not to be asylum seekers.
We are not only breaking all the common rules of decency, we’ve breached our obligations under the refugee convention. We’ve breached our obligations under UNHCR. Any idea of duty of care to the vulnerable is totally out of the window.
I know that from correspondence I get, and people speaking to me from overseas, that this has already damaged Australia’s reputation and it will take decades to recover.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/malcolm-fraser-coalition-asylum-policy
There are no limits to which Steve will not go to demonstrate inhumanity to people with a significantly demonstrated need. [This is] inhumanity demonstrated against some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
This is a total reversal of some of the values Australia had become renowned for. It saddens me to think that the Liberal party, and as I understand it also the Labor party, are thinking of additional ways to make their policies more brutal.
Grow up and stop telling lies, Bones. You’ve actually fooled yourself into a delusive state. And you can stop misquoting me while you’re at it.
Fraser lost credibility politically long ago and is just a grandstander who wishes he was still PM. He betrayed his own side of politics years ago. He’s no longer a liberal. More Green than Hanson-Young. Makes Brown look human.
Wazza, I didn’t say it was stupid, just a leftish rag. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion and has a perspective, some from the right or the the left, and this is closer to socialism than conservative. Some reasonable articles actually on some subjects but politically biased. Mostly Guardian reporters I understand and the former Age boss.
The article doesn’t actually say that much. It just opines that Indonesians are indifferent, which they probably are. Notwithstanding the asylum status or not of refugees, they are in Indonesia. How did they get there and what did it cost them? Why are they allowed to jump ahead of people who annot afford to travel to Indonesia?
I wasn’t being serious about Indonesia, becaus it is as plain as any they don’t cae about refugees only their money, which is why the smuggling routes should be stopped.
Bones either ain’t read or is completely ignorant since he’s totally ignored what I have said about keeping immigration open to refugees and asylum seekers, and encouraging them to be able to come, but not through human cargo smugglers or from the Indonesian smuggling routes.
Bones wants the people smugglers to call the shots, control our costumes and immigtpration departmens and set up our immigration policies.
Bones wants to pay billions to process refugees and asylum seekers offshore on overcrowded island detention centres.
Bones wants to risk people’s lives in leaky, unseaworthy, overcrowded fishing vessels which are liable to be scuttled to force our navy into rescuing them in Indonesian waters because the Indonesians don’t give a rip once they have their thirty pieces of silver.
He wants to help create and maintain the burden when all along there are safe and manageable processes for inclusion of genuine effigies and asylum seekers.
Bones lies and manipulates the conversation so that he can level accusations at people who are seeking a fair and equitable solution to a difficult problem.
Let him vote for the Greens. They deserve each other.
Hard work writing on iPad sometimes, but you get the drift!
Refugee obsession ‘out of proportion’
The UN’s refugee chief has called Australia’s obsession with asylum seekers arriving by boat ”out of proportion” and called for the ”very politicised” debate to be conducted in a less polarising manner.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, told a Sydney audience that people smuggling had become ”a nasty business” linked to organised crime and it was important for governments to crack down on human trafficking. But, he said, protection also had to be offered to the victims of the trade, who often had no legal way to escape their situation.
Last year (2011) 1500 asylum seekers died in the Mediterranean Sea, as 57,000 people reached Malta and Italy by boat. Another 100,000 asylum seekers reached Yemen by boat.
”It is very difficult for me as High Commissioner, who has to deal with the whole world, to be convinced that 6000 is a very important problem,” Mr Guterres said of boat arrivals to Christmas Island.
”I understand that in the psychology of Australia, the collective psychology, this is an important problem … but you need to understand also the global perspective.”
He called for moral leadership and warned the risk of a populist approach by politicians was that overblown fears ”all too easily manifest into statements and acts of xenophobia against foreigners – be they refugees, migrants or others”.
Mr Guterres spoke at the Lowy Institute to an audience that included David Manne, the lawyer who stopped the government’s Malaysia refugee swap in the High Court over its lack of human rights protections. He said his agency had concerns about the Malaysia agreement. ”It’s not what we liked, it’s something we could work with,” he said, noting the UNHCR was not a party to the deal.
In meetings with the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, Mr Guterres said he had raised the UNHCR’s concerns about Australia’s mandatory detention of asylum seekers, the need for faster security assessments by ASIO and the introduction of ”checks and balances” in the security assessment process.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/refugee-obsession-out-of-proportion-20120214-1t49w.html#ixzz2cbxjcId6
Btw there is no ‘queue’.
Some people spend too much time listening to Alan Jones.
Interesting comments on Fraser btw.
Really showing your true colours and nailing them to the Lib mast.
You’d love to reenact the SS St Louis.
The liar here is the one who claims to be God’s spokesman.
F**k me, why would anyone listen to you.
Bones,
Instead they’re helping these evil queue jumpers.
Bones, later,
Btw there is no ‘queue’.
You start the controversy then you deny it!
You support people smugglers to run our borders.
You claim loss of life at sea isn’t a big deal.
You’re happy to let the problem continue, denying it has a solution.
Walk away from your hero Rudd who caused the problem by opening the borders to people smugglers.
Lie through your teeth about what opponents to your unworkable policies say.
And curse from your falsely indignant militant moralist hideout.
Treehugger!
No queues (noun: a line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.):
‘Australia’s Migration Act 1958 requires all “unlawful non-citizens” (that is, people who are not Australian citizens and do not have permission to be in the country) to be detained, regardless of circumstances, until they are granted a visa or leave the country. This policy was introduced in 1992 and has been maintained by successive governments.
Mandatory detention applies to many groups, including people who overstay their visas or breach their visa conditions. However, the policy disporportionately affects asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat without authorisation.
Immigration detention is administrative, not punitive. It is meant to be a risk-management tool, not a way of punishing asylum seekers or deterring them from arriving without authorisation. The purpose of detaining asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation is to allow for health, identity and security checks to be carried out so as to mitigate any potential risks to the community.
Until recently, however, immigration detention was not used solely as a risk-management tool. Instead, asylum seekers arriving without authorisation were detained for the entire time it took to determine whether or not they were refugees – regardless of whether they posed any health or security risks to the community. This has resulted in thousands of men, women and children being detained uncessarily for often very prolonged periods, causing considerable harm to already vulnerable people and resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary expenditure each year.’
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-det.php
Guterres,
‘The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, told a Sydney audience that people smuggling had become ”a nasty business” linked to organised crime and it was important for governments to crack down on human trafficking.’
Indeed, and exactly what I have been saying.
He said his agency had concerns about the Malaysia agreement. ”It’s not what we liked, it’s something we could work with,” he said, noting the UNHCR was not a party to the deal.
Agreed!
Everyone wants a fair and equitable solution, and to allow refugees access to asylum where it is sought, but no one in their right mind, as Guterres says, wants to allow the people smugglers to run the borders.
Nauru and Manus Islands are not the right place for any refugee, let alone the thousands who are being sent there.
As long as the people smugglers are permitted to send the unsafe, overloaded boats into the open sea there will be problems for people who are entering as ‘unlawful non-citizens’ (that is, people who are not Australian citizens and do not have permission to be in the country), and have to join the queue of people who are being processed off-shore.
Again, to silence your lies, I am all for as many refugees and asylum seekers to come into the country as we can take at time, and not for exclusion, regardless of race, culrute or religion.
But I am against people smugglers who care nothing about the people who are sent, nor about our border security and sovereignty. They need to be stopped.
If you stop the people smugglers you stop the boats.
‘The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, told a Sydney audience that people smuggling had become ”a nasty business” linked to organised crime and it was important for governments to crack down on human trafficking.’
You say that as if its a bad thing!
“I understand that in the psychology of Australia, the collective psychology, this is an important problem … but you need to understand also the global perspective.”
That and what went before it is just dumb.
I’ll let the UN boss in on another secret. There maybe millions dying of hunger and lack of water and sanitation in some parts of the world, but if there were a hundred dead bodies front of the Opera House, he’d have a hard time convincing Australians to get a “global perspective”.
btw, you guys who love being attack dogs against God’s people do do some research into salary and spending of UN officials.
Go tell the people on Christmas Island to get a global perspective. Or better still Greg and Bones and Wazza can take all the refugees and gays and go live on a island and dance around naked with flowers in their hair. (What’s left of it that is)
I really need to give up this daily trip into the the signposts02 twilight zone.
So Greg’s a Green, too! Fortunately for Australia they are on the decline this election. Long may they slide into oblivion like the Social Democrats before them. At least the Social Democrats made sense some of the time, and really believed what they said.
The Green party is the hiding place for Reds, but only the colour blind wouldn’t notice.
Shit even in politics Q humps Steve’s leg.
I bet you aren’t whinging that Schindler took all the Jews gold in saving them.
So now Q tells the head on UNHCR he should be more concerned about the couple of thousands of queue jumpers invading our shores (why is this even brought up – f**k it’s an election of course) compared to the 230 000 queue jumpers that arrived in Yemen. (Where is the queue? Oh shit there isn’t one).
But hang on we should cancel the elections because of what’s happening in Egypt.
Right wing Christians hate on refugees and gays from these paragons of virtue who in the next breath tell Jesus how much they love Him and how they hate the world and work themselves up to an ecstatic state to make themselves feel good..
Retards!
re No queues (noun: a line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.):…
There’s nothing in that article about a queue but then comprehension and understanding written texts is not your strongpoint.
Are refugees who arrive by boat queue jumpers?
Applying for protection onshore is not a means of “jumping the queue” or bypassing the “proper” process of applying for protection.
In fact, applying onshore is the standard procedure for seeking protection. According to the definition in the UN Refugee Convention, refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin.
This means that you cannot apply for refugee status if you are inside your own country. In order to be recognised as a refugee, you must leave your country and apply for refugee status in another country. Every refugee in the world – including those who Australia resettles from overseas – has, at some point, entered another country to seek asylum.
The vast majority of the world’s refugees either return home once conditions which forced them to leave have improved; or settle permanently in their country of first asylum.
For some refugees, however, these solutions are impossible. For example, some countries are hosting very large numbers of refugees or don’t have the capacity to provide effective protection, and therefore require assistance from other countries to fulfil their protection obligations. In other cases, a country may simply refuse to provide any form of protection or assistance to refugees and asylum seekers.
In these sorts of cases, it may be necessary for refugees to be resettled in a third country. However, there is no resettlement “queue” which onshore applicants are trying to evade. Resettlement is intended to be a complement to, not a substitute for, providing protection to refugees who apply for asylum onshore. It is a way of providing a solution for refugees who have been unable to find effective protection elsewhere, but is certainly not the standard or only “legitimate” way to find protection – it’s simply a different solution based on different circumstances. In fact, only a tiny minority (less than one per cent of the world’s refugees) are resettled in third countries.
The UN resettlement system does not work like a queue. The term “queue” implies that resettlement is an orderly process and, if you join the end, you are guaranteed to reach the front within a certain amount of time. In reality, the UN resettlement system works more like a lottery than a queue. Many refugees lack access to UNHCR’s resettlement processes altogether and therefore simply do not have resettlement available to them as an option.
Furthermore, refugees are prioritised for resettlement according to need, not according to how long they have been waiting. These needs fluctuate and are continuously reassessed. For example, conditions in a refugee-producing country may improve, allowing refugees from that country to return home if they wish; or conditions in a refugee-hosting country may deteriorate, placing the refugees in that country in greater need of resettlement.
MORE QUESTIONS…
Do asylum seekers take places away from refugees in overseas camps?
The myth that asylum seekers take places away from refugees who are resettled from overseas does have some basis in truth. However, this is not because asylum seekers are trying to rort the system or “jump the queue” – they have a right to seek asylum and Australia has a legal and moral obligation to process their claims. Rather, it is the direct result of Australian Government policy.
Australia’s refugee program has two components – the onshore component, for people who apply for refugee status after arriving in Australia; and the offshore component, under which Australia resettles recognised refugees and other people in need of protection and assistance. The onshore and offshore components are numerically linked, which means that every time an onshore applicant is granted a Protection Visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program.
The linking policy blurs the distinction between Australia’s legal obligations as a signatory to the Refugee Convention (addressed through the onshore component) and our voluntary contribution to the sharing of international responsibility for refugees for whom no other durable solution is available (addressed through the offshore component). The perception that there is a “queue” which onshore applicants are trying to evade is actually created by a policy choice which could easily be changed. No other country in the world links its onshore and offshore programs in this way.
All human beings have a right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, which makes refugee protection a universal and global responsibility. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and as a member of the international community, Australia shares in this responsibility. There is no reason why Australia should be exempt from receiving and processing onshore asylum claims while expecting other nations to fulfil this responsibility. As a developed nation with well-established systems for refugee status determination and strong settlement support infrastructure, Australia is well-placed to play a leading role in refugee protection, both within our region and at a global level.
A common misconception about refugee protection is that applying for resettlement from overseas is the “proper channel” for seeking protection. In fact, resettlement of refugees in third countries is the exception rather than the rule. In general, resettlement is only used as a solution for refugees in cases where it’s not possible for them to return home or settle permanently in the country where they first sought asylum.
Out of the world’s 15.2 million refugees, UNHCR has identified around 800,000 (approximately five per cent) as being in need of resettlement in coming years. In 2011, 79,800 refugees were resettled through UNHCR with the USA receiving the highest number (51,500).
Over the past 10 years, an average of around 81,000 refugees have been resettled annually. At this rate, it would take 188 years for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled. While there remains a significant gap between resettlement needs and available places, it is not necessary, feasible or even desirable for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled in third countries.
http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/10/are-refugees-who-arrive-by-boat-queue-jumpers
“Shit even in politics Q humps Steve’s leg.”
Bad language from a man who is slipping further and further away from God.
“I bet you aren’t whinging that Schindler took all the Jews gold in saving them.”
Here we go…..Bones going around the world and all through history because….well because he is the king of irrelevance.
“So now Q tells the head on UNHCR he should be more concerned”
I am not interested in the UN. nothing to say to him, her or them.
“But hang on we should cancel the elections because of what’s happening in Egypt.”
?????
No, don’t cancel elections. Just stop worrying about putting vaginas on magazine covers and rich homosexuals forcing the church to give them lavish weddings
“Right wing Christians hate on refugees and gays”
No they don’t. All the hate on this site is from backsliders who hate the church. Yes – that’s you Bones.
“from these paragons of virtue who in the next breath tell Jesus how much they love Him and how they hate the world and work themselves up to an ecstatic state to make themselves feel good..”
No that’s just more raving from an angry man who hates mega churches just as much as his inability to find know God. Just give up the hate, stay off youtube and leftwing sites, and go read your bible and pray.
“Retards!”
coming from the man who doesn’t know what he believes. Goes from saying homosexual activity is a sin but Christians can’t legislate morality to someone who now thinks gay sex is okay .or does he…no, he doesn’t know. And he probably doesn’t have the guts to tell his church what he believes. Just a closet hater.
Thinking and teaching that men can kiss each other, have sex with each other, marry each other and adopt children is perhaps not retarded, but getting there.
Just dumb and evil.
So those poor unfortunates herded into Christmas Island, Manus Island and Nauru to be processed are not in a queue? They’ve reached their final destination, then? They’re not waiting for anything? they have all their visas, and passports and permission to enter and reside in Australia?
I don’t know, but when I last visited the doctor’s surgery for a check up, although I had an appointment, I had to wait whilst the doctor attended to other people ahead of me before I was able to go in. I was sitting in a place called the waiting room. Technically, according to the definition I gave you, although I had an appointment, I was in a queue.
Now, the people who have arrived in boats do not have an appointment, Bones. Some other people, who are in camps the other side of the world, in, say, Egypt, are also being processed. They do have an appointment, and are waiting in the waiting room to be assessed.
People without an appointment are also being assessed. They should have waited until the people in the camps had been processed, but they have moved ahead of the people in the camps in the process lines. Both sets of people ar ein the queue. One set has moved ahead.
perhaps his is the way asylum seekers can act. What is the difference? Is it perhaps that the ones on the off-shore islands have had the finances to gain entry through Indonesia, while the ones still in the camps do not? Is that fair, in you opinion? Or just life?
And then there’s the follow on form this, which is those people who still behind the asylum seekers in the camps who are waiting for those ahead of them to be processed before they come into the waiting room. Is it fair on them that financially able people can move to the front of the queue whilst they are pushed further behind?
Or maybe yo can provide me with a different analogy on the meaning of the word ‘queue’.
By the way, I never brought the idea of the queue or queue jumpers into this. You did.
Lastly, you lied about us again.
You levelled the claim we were ‘right wing’, and then said we hate on refugees and gays from these paragons of virtue who in the next breath tell Jesus how much they love Him and how they hate the world and work themselves up to an ecstatic state to make themselves feel good.
Again, I do not hate refugees. I have worked with them to help them settle, find jobs and even supplied funds. I would like to see as many as possible be resettled in safe lands, including Australia. I have many friends who are refugees, whom we have worked with, and for, who have made a huge contribution to Australian and UK society, and who still send greetings to my family.
I have not once said stop refugees. I have said stop the people smugglers and trafficking over dangerous seas in unseaworthy vessels where many have drowned, including children and infants. I have said they should come in through safe and controlled processing means, and not through illegal means.
If you lie about me any more I will simply request that Greg do the decent thing and remove your offending comments. If it occurs on my thread I will moderate it.
Stop lying.
On second thoughts, just let your words stand to show what an uncompromising, foul-mouthed idiot and liar you are.
Bones, forgetting he had said there were no queues after quoting Guterres,
There’s nothing in that article about a queue but then comprehension and understanding written texts is not your strongpoint.
Whose comprehension is in question? It was you who said there were no queues! You brought the entire issue of queues up and you’ve soundly refuted on it.
You wouldn’t think it was a queue if you were standing in one to buy your kids McDonalds. “It’s not a queue, son. It’s a gathering area where you contemplate your meal and negotiate the terms. Those people in front are merely more advanced in their decision making processes.”
Bones, straight after the Guterres quote:
Btw there is no ‘queue’.
https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/kevin-rudd-worse-than-judas/#comment-48421
But look, you clearly voted for Rudd and then for Gillard after she’d removed him from office, but carried on with the same policy blunders.
Now you desert them when Rudd wants to remove his disastrous problem from the front page by adopting a bad version of the policies which stopped the boats in the first place.
He heard your left wing cry for the borders to be opened so that he could gain your vote, and realised, when it was too late to change his mind, that he had opened the door to far more than the country could handle. He, as he often has in the last six years, came up with an uncoated, ill-thoought-out grandiose scheme which he left to others to solve once he had your vote an the headlines to say what a jolly fair fellow he was.
Then Gillard didn’t have the courage or the moral fortitude to deal with it. She hoped Kim Carr, Bowen and then some other poor wretch, Burke was it, could solve it for her with Christmas Island, crazy Malaysia schemes and lately a dumbed down Manus Island schemes.
Then Rudd returns with the belated, poorly-thought-out and now failing PNG solution and a Nauru backdown when it was far too late, and the financial and social damage was done with 50,000 refugees, called by Bob Carr ‘economic migrants’, and by the Refugee Association ‘unlawful non-citizens’, who were herded into various hot spots, towns, islands and places known and unknown to the public at huge expenditure and a sense of there being no control over the borders, over immigration, over the budget and costs, and no where to turn for a solution without admitting that opening the borders to people smugglers was a drastic and tragic mistake. The kind of mistake which loses elections.
Rudd listened to your lefty pleas and now, when he is panicked into a reversal to save his hide in an election, you slap him down and run off with the Greens, the very party Labour jumped in bed with and lost its mind over. Bob Brown took you all for a ride into la-la land. They do some strange things in the forests I hear.
So, having pressed your former leaders into unsecured borders and a free-for-all immigration surge, you drop them when they effectively repent and try to stem the tide like King Canute on the edge of the Arafura Sea.
Stuff it, you say, and link arms with the Greens, who are so unlikely to ever come to power again after the last debacle when they effectively destroyed our economy and made us the laughing stock of the sensible world, who have nothing to lose by coming up with unworkable policies which make them look so nice and caring and fair and daring but cause tragedy on a grand scale. The Midas touch only with with a green gunge gun.
Admit it for once, Bones, you and your left wing friends got it wrong. You cannot stop the boats or the smugglers so you try to bluff it, just as Rudd is trying to bluff it with the economy by saying debt isn’t a big deal. Let them all come, you say, sounding like née, hearty people.
No management, no budget, no organisation, complete surrender to smugglers and criminals, and an immigration policy controlled from Indonesia. Brilliant. And you seek a party which will give you more of the same.
It’s not actually about the people, the refugees, for you and your cronies. It’s about not losing face, not admitting you were wrong, your ideas are unworkable, and not about seeking an equitable, fair, just, manageable solution.
There’s a fair and just way for refugees to come, but it’s not your way. That is why Rudd has flip-flopped. But he still doesn’t get it.
I don’t know what economy you’re taking about…but ours here in Australia is the envy of others around the world! We survived the gfc better than anyone!
FACT: Australia’s economy is the envy of the world.
There are 960,000 more jobs in Australia than in 2007.
Since 2007 our economy has grown 13%. Compare that to the US economy which has grown by 2.25% and the European economy which has shrunk by 2%.
Australia has one of the lowest levels of debt in the world, the equivalent of a $12,000 mortgage for someone earning $100,000 per year. That’s why we have a AAA Credit Rating from the three key ratings agencies.
Interest rates have fallen from 6.75% to 2.75% since 2007 – the lowest rates on record. A family with a $300,000 mortgage is saving more than $5,000 a year.
But, yes you’re correct Steve, the Greens have destroyed our economy!
You do realise that the closer the interest rate its to 0% the clearer the indication is that the economy is in trouble. That is why the US is at 0%, as is the UK.
Australia wasn’t saved by Labour policies of Rudd/Swan, but by Keating and Costello’s intelligent fiscal moves, which Swan destroyed, failing to come up with a single budget surplus. Swan overspent. That is the globally accepted analysis of Labour policy.
Now you are paying for it, and will for the next ten years. Had it not been for China and the mining boom, which Rudd effectively nullified with the mining tax, Australia would be in even deeper trouble.
Don’t be complacent, Greg. Australia will always be resource rich, but you have to have markets for resources, and the cost of development, because you don’t dig iron ore out of the ground with shovels and picks.
The Greens, of course, want to destroy all mining and return us to a wilderness society, whilst at the same time taxing mining to pay its debts. Brilliant! Australia can’t manage as small communities dotted along the coast. It needs a massive transport infrastructure, which costs money and relies on exports.
The Green dream of a wilderness society is wonderful, but it will only happen if everyone leaves the country to live in other lands.
Australia is too big and isolated to function without utilising its vast resources. 22 million people going on to 25 million very soon in habitable land far smaller, and more isolated, with harsher weather conditions than the huge continent suggests.
Greens want to harness wind power and the like, but at the same time say we’re all dying from climate change so refused to build damns on the basis that it would never rain again in Australia. Misguided, low vision, elegantly thick policy making based on speculation, upper middle class arrogance and a lack of understanding of the environment it claims to support.
Your figures are fudged lefty propaganda, by the way.
I live in London, and it is far cheeper to live here, in the most expensive city in UK, than in Sydney, where I was recently on a trip. I was shocked at the prices of basic necessities.
And the dollar is about to fall.
fmd take your liberal propaganda shit to some other site. Cant get away from election ads.
Why? It’s a free country. Or do the Greens have plans for this too?
Its conservatives like you who want to limit human rights to others as seen in your hatred of gays, refugees and other christians.
Are you alright, Bones? You seem to have gone off into a lying spasm again.
Bones,
Some people spend too much time listening to Alan Jones.
You’re not attacking a gay radio host are you, Bones?
But, no, I’ve very rarely listened to Alan Jones. I actually never lived in the same City, State or area to Alan. I am in UK.
But, look, I’ve located some really interesting commentary form his show. I really recommend you listen. It is extraordinarily efficient in its summary of the current debate in Australian politics.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/11731#.UhdqURYcp6P
The only lies here are from those supposed Christians spewing Liberal Party propaganda as truth. As shown by the lies of queue jumping and that most asylum seekers aren’t genuine refugees.
You’ve got an interesting bedfellow in Alan Jones. You and and the Parrot go well together. Vicious nasty right wing sycophants.
“But look, you clearly voted for Rudd…”
Didn’t read anything after that. WRONG. AGAIN.
FOOL!
PEOPLE SMUGGLERS: ‘SCUM OF THE EARTH’ OR HEROES WITH A NOBLE TRADITION?
Definition
The procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident. (http://www.aic.gov.au/documents) People smuggling versus trafficking in persons: what is the difference?Opinion
“People smugglers are engaged in the world’s most evil trade and they should all rot in jail because they represent the absolute scum of the earth…People smugglers are the vilest form of human life. They trade on the tragedy of others and that’s why they should rot in jail and in my own view, rot in hell. We see this lowest form of human life at work in what we saw on the high seas yesterday. That’s why this Government maintains its hardline, tough, targeted approach to maintaining border protection for Australia.” Kevin Rudd following the death of 3 people and the rescue at sea of a further 20 asylum seekers in 2009.Public Perception
People smuggling is a crime, carried out by men who exploit people who are often at the lowest point of their lives, charging them thousands of dollars to cross oceans on leaky boats and arrive at countries like Australia in the hope they will find a better life.If, as Kevin Rudd suggested, people smugglers are the worst of the worst, where, on the continuum below, would you rank
• People smugglers who assisted Jews out of Nazi Germany
• People smugglers who put people on unseaworthy boats
• Human traffickers?Least worse Pretty bad Worse than badPeople Smugglers – Entrepreneurial?
People smugglers, the object of Canberra’s ire, should not be condemned. They are simply reacting to the failure of the official channels to provide for the effective movement of people around the globe. Governments, both national and international through the UN, have a monopoly on people movement. They set quotas and targets. They establish fictional queues in which human beings are expected to wait patiently for decades while their application for asylum or refugee status is assessed.People smugglers on the other hand provide an alternative to the official market. They set a price and there are takers of that price and service in the form of individuals who understandably don’t face being killed or persecuted while they wait for the official government channels to assess their case. Greg Barns, The Drum 2.7.12Ali Al Jenabi the ‘Oskar Schindler of Asia’ following the 2009 shipwreck of the asylum seekers’ vessel on Christmas Island
‘Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Chris Bowen coin the phrase the people smuggler’s business model. They declare they are going to smash this mysterious identity by any means. I laugh out loud when I hear it. Do they think there are men in suits sitting around boardroom tables somewhere devising strategies? Has no-one told them people smuggling is an amorphous rag-tag network run by word of mouth and mobile phones? There are no records or bank accounts. No spreadsheets or business plans. They pop up whenever people are trying to escape and disappear when they are no longer needed. If you want to stop people smugglers you have to do something about what causes people to flee their own countries in the first place’ Robin De Crispigny, The People SmugglerIs the entrepreneurial aspect a reasonable way to think about people smugglers? Is people smuggling simply a service being provided for which government agencies are not sufficiently resourced? Advocates of small government and laissez faire principles applaud such innovations in other areas. Why not people smuggling?Victims as much as perpetrators?
People smugglers are characteristically poor, frequently refugees themselves (Sri Lankan), have a mix of motives from altruism to profit-making (data taken from 16 people smugglers convicted between 2001-2006) People Smugglers: Saviours or criminals? A report on 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001-2006.
Under this bill people acting on humanitarian grounds, or offering financial support to refugees overseas, can be charged with people-smuggling offences. This bill treats good Samaritans the same as ‘for profit’ people smugglers, which means that under this bill the nuns from ‘The Sound of Music’ could be thrown into jail. That is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. That is plainly ridiculous. (Senator Nick Xenophon, Second Reading Speech Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, Thursday 13 May 2010)Discussion
Discuss the smuggling activities of Moses, Joseph (the father of Jesus), or Rahab
Can you think of any other smuggling activities Christians have been involved in (smuggling people or goods)? e.g. Nicholas Winton, Bruce Haigh, Corrie ten Boom, Brother Andrew.
Any kind of smuggling activity requires a willingness to act on the fringes of society. Smuggling involves any or all of the following: bribery, deception, disloyalty, and subterfuge. Can these activities ever be the act of a ‘good person’?
Traditionally the concepts of heroism and virtue are linked. Can this understanding of what it means to be a good person (e.g. law abiding, respectful, honest) inhibit a person’s ability to be heroic?
http://baptistsocialissues.com/people-smugglers-scum-of-the-earth-or-heroes-with-a-noble-tradition/
Bones, I am being generous.
You have lied on this thread about what I believe and ignored what I have told you. You have not apologised, just persisted with the lies as if lying was now your cause célebre
I have told you I support refugees actively, support that they come, but only through legal means, and you have, nevertheless lied and said I hate them. I clearly do not hate them. I support them. I champion them.
Yet you persist like some dumb scarecrow in field of dead corn in winter.
If that is not a lie after I have told you the absolute truth then you are a habitual liar and not worth discussing anything with.
Now you finally, as predicted, come up with a googled evidence that the people smugglers are noble beasts with the interests of refugees at heart.
And I don’t really give a monkey’s who you voted for. I’m long past caring, since you deserve the greens as much they deserve you.
Bones,
You’ve got an interesting bedfellow in Alan Jones. You and and the Parrot go well together. Vicious nasty right wing sycophants.
What!
I told you I’ve never listened to the man apart from a commentary I put up today so people can judge for themselves what he says. I’ve never lived in the same city as him, nor do I know what he says.
I don’t even live in the same country, you parochial nong!
It’s an election, you childish dingbat, not a call to arms!
Get a grip, for goodness sake!
that’s what I don’t understand Steve, they ARE coming legally…the only way one can claim asylum from a country is to be IN that country! Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, thereby making us the only country (and NZ) in this region that is safe for refugees to make there way to.
Granted, we don’t want people making money off them in a heartless manner such as the people smugglers do. We also don’t want people dying because if the unsafe manner if their travel. However the one thing they are not doing is entering the country illegally!
The opportunity for civil speech on the matter is long gone on this thread, Greg. Nice try though.
It’s obvious that ‘people smuggling’ of Muslims and Asians is seens as deplorable as say the ‘people smuggling’ of Christians and Jews.
But if you know something of the history of Australia to Asians and the White Australia Policy, we know that’s no surprise.
What is a surprise is to hear it preached from the pulpit and taken as gospel by those who fear those who are different, especially other religions.
In terms of good public policy, this Bill is a tenth-order issue. But unfortunately it has become a live political issue.
People smuggling and asylum seekers arriving by boat is a miniscule problem, not only from Australia’s domestic perspective, but also by comparison with a number of asylum seekers seeking protection in other countries. For example, in one weekend in August, more boat people arrived in Italy from Africa than arrived in six months in Australia.
The focus on people smugglers has the effect, partly by design, to divert attention from vulnerable and often heroic people that need our protection, e.g. Afghanis fleeing the Taliban and the corrupt government in Kabul, the military junta in Myanmar and the violent mullahs in Iran backed by their brutal security services.
Governments need to be concerned when asylum seekers use people smugglers to take them on dangerous and possibly fatal journeys. But where there is persecution and violence and no legitimate or obvious way to escape, asylum seekers, if they have the money, will probably turn to people smugglers. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who came to Australia and other countries during and after WWII paid people smugglers or agents to escape. In our region, people smugglers provide a valuable service to help North Koreans escape into China across the Tumen River. If there is a market need and opportunity, someone will provide a service to help people escape.
One of the most famous people-smugglers was Oscar Schindler. He was a member of the Nazi Party and a business opportunist with a factory in occupied Poland. The inscription on his grave in Jerusalem reads “Righteous among the nations. The unforgettable life saver of 1200 persecuted Jews.” For a fee, many people smugglers do save lives.
We should not allow the focus on people smugglers to obscure the motivations for people to flee their country or their need for protection. Desperate people will not abide by the rules of politicians and officials to join some non-existent queue. There are over 10 million refugees in the world with less than 100,000 resettlement places per annum. The metaphor of a lottery is more appropriate than a queue. People-flows are often messy, unpredictable and chaotic. This Bill will not change that.
Parliamentarians and the media are obsessed with boat people and people smugglers. People smugglers also assist asylum seekers who come by air, but that fact is ignored. We also ignore the fact that in the last ten years, 76% of asylum seekers came by air. In the last five years, it was 71% who came by air. We put in detention asylum seekers who come by boat, but we allow asylum seekers who come by air to live in the community while their refugee claims are being assessed. There are about 50,000 “illegals” in the country. They are people that have come legally to Australia, and have then disappeared into the community when their visas have expired. But the issue is largely ignored. What is the logic in all this? These are surely more important issues that need to be addressed.
In considering this amendment to the Migration Act 1958, the Parliament should consider two much more important issues. The first should be an amendment that clearly articulates the values, principles and obligations of Australia towards asylum seekers and refugees. This is necessary to balance the drum beat of border protection and national security since September 11, 2001, which has pushed human rights and humanitarian issues into the background. We must restore a better balance between border protection and humanitarian obligations. In Canada, refugee protection is covered in a distinct division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Fraser Government did demonstrate that it is possible to have humanitarian refugee policies without prejudicing national security or our borders.
The second amendment should establish an Independent Refugee, Asylum and Humanitarian Assistance Authority to administer policies and programs. The Government of course must set the policy guidelines, but such an independent authority would help depoliticise refugee administration. The culture of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is grounded in compliance and enforcement. That is important but it must be balanced by our humanitarian responsibilities and obligations. Present ministerial and departmental arrangements do not get that balance right.
I attach A New Approach. Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees and Asylum Seekers. This document was published by the Centre for Policy Development. It was endorsed by a wide cross-section of prominent Australians. This document elaborates on the issues mentioned above.
The parliament needs to address important and priority issues involving asylum seekers and refugees. People smuggling is not one of them.
http://www.johnmenadue.com/population/html_files/submission.html
“The opportunity for civil speech on the matter is long gone on this thread, Greg. Nice try though.”
Sure has. Started with the second post.
The lies and innuendo of a person motivated by fear and right wing propaganda.
But you dont oppose free speech, do you Steve?
Remember the Christian values Institute lists that as a key Christian value
“14. Protect free speech – oppose vilification laws – they limit free speech”
As Christians, we have the right to vilify anyone we want to – even other Christians – and we need to uphold and defend that right.
I am not a supporter of the so-called Christian Values Institute. I know nothing about them, wazza. That was all your trip, not mine. Which is why I won’t bite at your bait. I don’t see any logic in voting for minor parties when the major parties make the decisions. Better to influence the leaders by lobbying them, not being distracted by the sideshows.
Bones actually believes there are no marxists in the Green party. Nor that it worships the earth as Gaiah and would like to depopulate the planet of people to save it. They’ll stop the boats alright. They’ll end the means of fuelling them.
Your self-righteous attitude and disingenuous representation of others have been despicable, Bones. You are a credit to the Greens.
Free speech, wazza, and the right to vilify. Interesting.
Well, if Bones wants to vilify people he can go ahead, it’s mostly water off a ducks back if it’s untrue or has no substance to it. The curse causeless is without effect, says Wisdom.
But if he is going to make spurious claims about what someone says and has the gall to write things they did not say as if they did and he is called out on it then it is his reputation, for what it’s worth, that is being challenged, not that of the person he falsely accuses.
If he makes a wrong assumption about a person once, or gets his opinion wrong, or makes an incorrect statement, well, we all do that from time time, and that’s the nature of debates and discussions, especially when it comes to politics, sport and religion.
And being heated at certain times merely shows passion for a cause or a degree of conviction.
But if, after he’s been pulled up on it three, four or five times for a barefaced lie he still persists with the defamatory claims, then he has no credibility whatsoever and is shown to be nothing more than a fraud.
So, persistent lying and misrepresentation may be part of free speech, but it will come at a cost to someone.
The generally accepted payment is an apology. If this is not forthcoming the perjured party has to pay with forgiveness.
That is the Christian way.
Yes I’m waiting for an apology.
But I know that hell will freeze over before conservative Christians will ever admit to being wrong.
I mean it couldn’t possibly be them that’s wrong.
Your self-righteous attitude and disingenuous representation of others have been despicable, Bones.
Right back at you big fella. You’re the epitome of the self-righteous tosser on here. You’re the Pharisee Jesus warned about.
There’s nothing about your Jesus worth following. He’s a false Christ.
Rudd’s hero, the people smuggler
Kevin Rudd’s hero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was a people smuggler. And our prime minister knows it.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian put to death for his complicity with those who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler, was ”a theologian, pastor and peace activist … a man of faith … a man of reason” – and a people-smuggler. As Rudd himself wrote further in the October 2006 edition of The Monthly, Bonhoeffer ”organised the secret evacuation of a number of German Jews to Switzerland”.
In that essay, in which Rudd reveals himself as a clear thinker who can write, he argues thus: ”Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst.”
It is the combination of these two assertions – that Bonhoeffer smuggled Jews to safety and the acknowledgement of the obligation owed to the vulnerable stranger – that makes the panic of Rudd’s government over the arrival of more asylum seekers so dismaying. For Rudd knows better.
So far this year 33 boats carrying asylum seekers have arrived on our shores. As in their right, as Rudd acknowledges, thanks to our signing the UN convention protecting those seeking refuge, which, as Rudd further acknowledges in the same essay, was a response to the Holocaust, when the world turned its back on the menaced Jews of Europe.
Rudd has done what he can to ensure that 33 boats do not become 34, with the latest boat, carrying 78 refugees, and the one before it, carrying 250 Tamils, ending up Indonesia – which has not signed that UN convention – instead of being allowed to continue their journey to Australia. The stranger has been turned away, before he is even in our midst. Those 330 people will in all likelihood live a squalid life for years to come, without work or education, with no certainty about where their eventual home will be.
Rudd has used unusually intemperate language twice to denounce people smugglers, calling them the vilest form of life. He has convinced no one, least of all himself. I think what he is trying to do is create a demon – and make that demon the object that soaks up all the fear and hatred that otherwise can attach to the refugees themselves. Which is what our previous prime minister did, except that he targeted the refugees themselves.
Rudd’s lack of belief in what he says about people smugglers is betrayed by his overreaching rhetoric, his uncustomary language, his tin ear. He doesn’t believe. He knows what Bonhoeffer did. The government line that it is following the letter of international law betrays the fact it is not following the spirit. The government has kept most of its promises in relation to asylum seekers – but getting Indonesia to take them before they get to Australian waters subverts everything else.
There is, of course, no straight moral equivalence between Bonhoeffer risking his life for 14 Jews and a professional people smuggler risking others’ lives for his own profit. But the motives of the smuggler matter little to those fleeing danger – they will take help where they find it. And it is precisely such help that Rudd is now denying vulnerable strangers.
In his essay, written while still in opposition, Rudd wrote that one role of the church is to speak truth to the power of the state. Now that he embodies the power of the state, Rudd needs to be reminded, perhaps by the church, of that truth.
He wrote also that ”a core, continuing principle … should be that Christianity, consistent with Bonhoeffer’s critique in the 30s, must always take the side of the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed”. Rudd needs to get back in touch with his principles and knock off the politics. His current actions betray not only his own principles, but the people who put him in power. On this topic he is failing as a politician and as a Christian.
Copyright Michael Epis
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/episodes/rudds-hero-the-people-smuggler-20091020-h6xn.html#ixzz2csfh18Ka
K.Rudd
“‘Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst.”
Rudd and Abbott are political animals who will sell their souls and betray their convictions to stay in or get in power.
It’s sickening to see Christians follow them completely ignoring Matthew 25:31-46 but bathing in their own self-righteousness and condemnation of the marginalised.
I couldn’t care less if the Greens worshipped Baal or took place in naked druid dances (and your accusation sounds like more HIslop fantasy to me). By supporting and caring for the marginalised they show Christ.
Bones, in case you missed it, I apologised to you a few days ago for a strong remark i made. You’ll find it here…
https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/what-slippery-slope-things-they-said-would-never-happen/#comment-48339
You can obfuscate and wriggle around words and insults all you want, mate, but the record declares on this thread that I have consistently said I am for refugees, and as many as we can help in the best possible way, but you have repeatedly ignored this and said I hate refugees, and even worse.
This is patently wrong.
You have accused me of being a ‘vicious nasty right wing sycophant’. For what? For saying I would like to see refugees allowed into free countries, settled and in employment? Sycophant to whom? Alan Jones, whom I’ve never listened to before this week, who was brought up by you?
I have been actively engaged in helping refugees settle, find jobs and helped finance their relatives to come into the country. What more do you want?
The record is on this thread and others. I am calling what you have said a lie and you are still defending your lies and demanding an apology from me because I point out that you are wrong!
What does that make you?
I have nothing more to say to you on this. If you persist with your clams I hate refugees after what I’ve told you you are no more than a bonehead.
Of course Steve will vote for a man of principal
TONY Abbott two years ago begged for support to become Prime Minister, saying he would do anything except “sell my arse” to get the job, Parliament heard today.
“If he had been asked to put in place an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax, for that matter, he would have done it,” independent Tony Windsor said in a savage attack on the Opposition Leader.
“The fact that he was not asked was a very, very good judgement, in my view.”
Mr Windsor stunned the House by taking crude and stinging shots at the Opposition Leader who had just accused Julia Gillard of effectively selling out on a carbon tax to form a government.
The Opposition Leader has denied the Windsor claims, which erupted as Parliament ended a week of drama over asylum seekers and the the operation of carbon pricing.
Mr Windsor called Mr Abbott “an absolute disgrace” and said the Opposition Leader had promised to introduce the same carbon pollution reduction program the Labor government is now pursuing.
Mr Windsor said Mr Abbott had offered to do just about anything for support to head a Coalition minority government after the 2010 election.
He said: “He begged for the job and he made the point, not only to me but to others that were in that negotiating period, that he would do anything to get that job, anything to get that job.
“And you would well remember and your colleagues should be aware, that the only codicil that you put on that (was), `I will do anything , Tony (Windsor) to get that job. The only thing I wouldn’t do is to sell my arse’.”
And before Steve discredits Windsor, he supported the ALP government knowing full well it would be the end of his political career.
Rudd’s policies are an abomination. They are ill-thought-out and unworkable. I have already stated this.
He opened the doors after they had been firmly shut.
He made the decision to remove the policies that discouraged people smugglers for send hundreds of people on overcrowded, unseaworthy vessels from Indonesian ports, lining the pockets of criminals and smugglers, not to mention the backhanders which must be taking place to officials to allow this to take place. How high up does this go?
Rudd made a mess of it when he came into power, and he has just made it worse. I agree his polices are merciless. He said it wold stop the boats. they are still coming. Why? Because the smugglers know he is a walkover.
I don’t see how any incoming government cannot now just process the 50,000 in present camps, give genuine asylum seekers amongst them refugee status, and then make a determined effort to stop the boats, firstly, at the source, and secondly, if need be, initially, in transit.
That latter part is the hard part, because now hundreds and maybe thousands have been encouraged by Rudd’s policies to arrive in Indonesia as a transit lounge.
Gillard’s government was useless. They had no idea what to do with Rudd’s stupidity. They fudged and dithered and made things worse.
They are the worse thing that has ever happened to Australian politics. They need to go.
But the Greens don’t have a clue what they are doing. Sounding merciful is one thing, but when it coms to the how to they have been found wanting on several fronts.
It is a complex problem, and one where mercy must be shown to refugees, but it can never be fixed by letting criminals and smugglers run our borders.
And now you produce for evidence Windsor who left politics because he knew he was on a hiding to nothing for selling out his community to Labour when they were predominantly rural old country party folk who voted him in the basis of his roots with the Nationals and the benefits he promised as an Independent. He was just trying to save his hide.
Once again, like Oakeshott, he chose the wrong side, politically and for his own electorate, and helped create and sustain the worse ever Parliament in Australia’s history.
He made two scathing statements, one about John Anderson, and the other about Tony Abbott under privilege in Parliament, because he wouldn’t have the nerve outside of Parliament.
Some example.
You must think other people than yourself came down with the last shower.
“I couldn’t care less if the Greens worshipped Baal or took place in naked druid dances. By supporting and caring for the marginalised they show Christ.”
I rest my case.
After reading the comments here from the last few days, I’d say it’s pretty clear that Bones and Greg are lost. Theologically insane and with totally seared consciences. Dead.
Sad and scary at the same time to see what can happen to Christians. Lessons in there.
Off to the verandah to wipe the dust off my feet.
But I will apologise to you, Bones. I will. Because I genuinely thought that you were an old Catholic Labour man. It just sited the picture of a semi-marxist socially liberal left of centre Christian.
I am sorry. I never took you for a Green. It must have been distressing for you to be accused of being a labour supporter, especially of Rudd, or Gillard, who had a pact with you on the carbon price, and signed up to give Bob Brown the Prime Ministership for a few months there.
I assumed from your first comment on this thread that you were disenchanted with the ‘old’ parties, as the Greens like to call them, and had decided, in his election, to switch to the Greens. I knew you could never, ever be a Liberal or National Party supporter.
If you read it again you will see that it was an honest mistake to make. I’d only ever met one other Christian who was a staunch Green supporter and he was, well… nice but different, kind of a forest dweller in a house with mod cons, and a tendency to forage in the city for the odd item he couldn’t find in the wild. I guess, thinking about it, that is quite normal for Greens, though.
So, anyway, I’m sorry for calling you a Labour man. Now I know two Greenies, or maybe three, because it seems that Greg is one too!
Sad and scary at the same time to see what can happen to Christians. History is littered with Christianity’s inhumanity to man. The triumphalism of dogma and doctrine over compassion. Those who strain at a gnat yet swallow a camel. Christians who side with popular politics and pick on the poor.
Yes Jesus spoke about you.
You have nothing to say to me in your throes of indignation and condemnation. The Pharisees were the same.
Oh by the way. The Catholics yet again show themselves better than the you.
Catholic Church urges compassion over asylum seekers and boat people
THE Catholic Church has reminded Australians asylum seekers should be treated with compassion as the debate over border protection rages.
It’s potentially a message for the church-going Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to consider as the issue continues to draw the political spotlight.
Contentious debate about Australia’s projected population growth to 36 million by 2050 has also forced discussions about immigration policy, with Mr Abbott flagging possible cuts to migrant intake numbers.
The Catholic Church reminded the government and the opposition yesterday not to forget to treat genuine asylum seekers with compassion and care.
Bishop Joseph Grech conceded the need to safeguard Australia’s borders, but said compassion should not be sacrificed as a result.
“We remain committed to pursuing a humanitarian approach in assisting people who have fled persecution and danger,” he said in a statement.
“Instead of simply pledging to return asylum seekers to situations of conflict, we must seek solutions so that people would not necessarily have to leave their own country.”
Both sides of federal politics should continue discussions with neighbouring countries to work out solutions.
The church said it remained committed to providing pastoral care and support to genuine refugees.
But the Opposition has remained adamant it will be harsher on arrivals, refusing to entertain applications from asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without identity papers.
And comes soon after Mr Abbott said not even Jesus would have been so “soft” on asylum seekers.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison says having correct documentation should be a “key requirement” for asylum seekers.
The coalition is concerned that nine out of 10 boat people are found to be genuine refugees.
Mr Morrison told ABC TV rejection rates varied around the world.
On Christmas Island assessors were often making a “subjective judgment based on the balance of probabilities”, he said.
That’s because there’s little hard evidence available.
“Particularly when people are discarding their identity documentation,” Mr Morrison said.
“That presents real pressures and problems.
“Ensuring people have documentation is a key requirement.”
Mr Morrison said asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat often flew into other countries first.
“You need documentation to get into these countries and somehow between there and Australia that documentation goes missing.
“Now that raises concerns from our perspective and we’re looking at policy remedies as to how you would deal with that if we were in government.”
The opposition immigration spokesman also dismissed Population Minister Tony Burke’s suggestion that governments could “move people around at will”.
Mr Burke on Tuesday suggested the Commonwealth could do more to ensure new migrants lived in areas short of workers.
“The levers we have available in the immigration program is one of the issues that I want to be able to look at,” he told ABC TV.
“There are things that are already done in the points system.
“I don’t want to rule out the extent to which we might be able to better target some of those programs than we have previously.”
But Mr Morrison said that had been tried before.
“It’s a lot easier in theory than it is in practice and I think it presents real problems,” Mr Morrison said.
“The government needs to start focusing on what the actual numbers are and what’s sustainable and work back from there.”
The opposition immigration spokesman also confirmed a Tony Abbott led government would increase the number of skilled migrants entering Australia as a proportion of the total intake.
“We believe at least two-thirds of the permanent intake for migration should be skilled.”
https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/kevin-rudd-worse-than-judas/#comment-48528
Q, I couldn’t give a shit what you think. I’d say you are a retard.
You have no credibility at all in my eyes.
So you two dickheads are telling me Jesus would vote for Abbott.
F##k off!
If you read the thread I haven’t defended the Greens. I have attacked the policies of the major parties.
I have voted Democrat, Family First, Coalition and Labour over the years.
I refuse to vote for draconian asylum seeker policies which comes up election after election.
I do not and will not just vote for someone for the sake of it.
Hell I’d vote for Clive Palmer over this mob.
And now you produce for evidence Windsor who left politics because he knew he was on a hiding to nothing for selling out his community to Labour when they were predominantly rural old country party folk who voted him in the basis of his roots with the Nationals and the benefits he promised as an Independent. He was just trying to save his hide.
F**k me. That’s a comment straight from the Liberal Party.
This whole thread has been Liberal Party and Rudd policies v Jesus’s teachings on compassion.
Of course some here (one who is lamentably a pastor), wouldn’t know Jesus if He bit him on the arse.
But the Greens have shown enough of themselves for us to know that they must never again be given the balance of power in the Senate.
It was a disaster for the economy and a disaster for the party which was unequally yoked with them, which, despite bringing Rudd back on board, looks as if it will be defeated at the ballot box this time around.
It is a travesty, in my opinion, that an opportunist party like the Greens, which can only muster 10% of the vote, and a single seat in the House of Representatives, can be allowed to hold the balance of power and foist its socialistic idealism on the nation. It ransomed the nation for six years to its Green policies with one representative in the Main House.
Bob Brown must take the credit for that. A masterful politician and brilliant in front of the cameras, he seduced the nation into compliancy. Sadly, despite his charm and excellent defence of the environment, the majority of his political aims were, and still are, flawed and would send the nation into the dark ages.
From Wickipedia:
The title “The Greens” had been first registered in Sydney in the 1980s by what The Monthly Magazine described as “a band of inner-city radicals committed to resident action, nuclear disarmament and urban environmental causes, such as stopping expressways and preserving parklands”.
The group formed as the Sydney Greens and evolved into the Green Alliance, with the stated aim of not forming a “traditional hierarchy party”.
According to party co-ordinator Hall Greenland, when amalgamation with Bob Brown’s Tasmanian movement was first mooted, Brown was hesitant owing to what he perceived as the “anarchic leftism” of the Sydney movement.
New South Wales and Western Australian Green groups were also wary of amalgamation owing to local autonomy concerns and a 1986 attempt by Brown to form a national party failed.
The movement for a national party continued however. In an effort to reduce the influence of the Democratic Socialist Party (formerly Socialist Workers Party) in the New South Wales Greens, Brown successfully moved for a ban on dual party membership by Greens.
Following formation of the national party in 1992, regional emphasis variations remained within the Greens, with members of the “industrial left” remaining a presence in the New South Wales branch.
So you can see the remaining influence of the far left remains in a party which has striven for authenticity as an alternative party, but failed to root out the marxist worker party membership.
Lee Rhianon, of course, was a noted trotskyist from a famously marxist background.
So, maybe not exactly Ba’al worshippers, but they have strong connections with the branches of wilderness protectors who definitely worship the trees more than protect them.
Having lost Bob Brown, who was able to keep things reasonably sane, it will be interesting to see how the marxist gaiah celebrating inner city dwellers develop the product.
Personally, I think they’d all be better off in the forest.
You were the one who said you’d vote for the greens, Bones. Don’t blame other people for your lack of foresight.
And Jesus isn’t an Aussie, so he doesn’t have to vote.
You do. Hard luck!
But which Jesus are you talking about, Bones? The Jesus of the Bible?
But of course I’ve noticed you haven’t been spewing out scripture after scripture to justify your position on refugees.
Because you can’t.
Because Jesus condemns you.
(Who is my neighbour? Apparently not f**king boat people)
If you were consistent like you champion the Lake of Fire for non-believers you would be worried about Matthew 25
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment,
Nah you support turning away those in need because they paid a people smuggler. Turn them back to someone else cause “I am not my brother’s keeper”.
I’d say based on Jesus’s own words, you’re both pretty f**ked.
Lee Rhianon, of course, was a noted trotskyist from a famously marxist background.
You don’t know what that means do you?
Just sounds trendy and Liberal.
Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull were members of the Labour Party.
Here’s news.
PEOPLE CHANGE!
Greens will get my vote over Labour and Coalition. So will the Sex Party.
Bones, if you are on medication usually, and haven’t taken them today or recently, I suggest you take them.
But either way, with all your foul language, slander and mockery of the bible, it doesn’t make any sense for you to try to speak for Jesus.
Do you drink when you post here/ Because you lack any thread of logic or coherence.
Or have demons learned to type??
Reading your posts reminds of the exorcist movie sometimes.
Apparently the Carbon Tax was a good idea. Once!
Nice intro to the scripture you don’t believe in, Bones!
I moved away from giving Scripture for your sake, since neither you nor Greg believe the Bible is authentic, so it seemed pointless to cast those pearls in front of you.
By the way, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, unless you are saying I would not help refugees and therefore I am not being a good Christian.
To which I would have to say, you’re such nincompoop to have failed to notice that I have been saying that I have spent several years actively engaged in helping refugees and migrants enter, settle, find jobs, bring family, etc, etc…
I was going to give a record of our involvement, but I don’t need to justify myself to you. It should be enough for you to take my word for it, just as I take your word that you are not actually a Green and will not pursue it now that I know.
I really can; understand or see your motives for pursuing this line of accusation, Bones. It serves no purpose but to make you look like a very angry and complete buffoon.
Q, I don’t give a shit. I know the cultic way of trying to silence opposition when you have nothing. The Nazis, Communists, cults all accuse their critics of being mentally ill.
Deny Jesus all you want. I’m not going to self pontificate like you do.
Good job at denying Jesus’s own words about accepting strangers, btw.
So it’s demonic now to quote scripture.
(Yeah I know it’s hard to think that Jesus is talking about you in Matthew 25 because He’s only gonna burn gays, Muslims, people smugglers, liberal Christians for all eternity).
I’ll say it again.
Any reading of Matthew 25 suggests your f**ked no matter how righteous you think you are..
I could understand if you voted for the Sex Party, Bones, with the language you use.
You think Lee Rhiannon has changed! No she joined the party which fit her views. In fact she has a record of shifting political views wherever she has influence.
But look, maybe the Green party is the safest one for you, because the way you’re hyperventilating over politics and the election I’d say you need a few weeks in the wilderness to get over it.
I don’t think Q was being cultic, Bones.
I think he was trying to tell you by round about means that you were being irrational in the degree of passion you are showing.
Not only this, but you are saying things which do no compute with what your perceived opponents have been saying.
I’ve been trying to tell you this too, but you have not taken a blind bit of notice and persist with this fallacious line of accusation.
In short, you’re making a right nong of yourself and he was given you a get out of jail card.
Matthew 25 says
You are screwed.
Argue your politics with Jesus.
Well trotskyites advocate world-wide marxism, and adhere to a marxist-lenin form of socialism.
Lenin was championed for his promotion of workers’ rights, although he was from the wealthy middle class, but infamous for his wide-spread abuse of human rights, framed by what is known as the ‘Red Terror’ elimination of opponents, including, some say, the assassination of the royal family, and certain social classes, to which he was the main signatory.
In other words, whatever is convenient to power must take place regardless, including the elimination of opposition and free speech.
How is this in line with anything Biblical or of Christ?
By the way, your use of Scripture is appalling in its exegesis.
Bones,
You are screwed.
What? You think I’m so dull of understanding of Scripture to be moved by your pathetic threat?
I don’t think you get past John 13:34-35.
Unless, of course you grasp the meaning of 1 John 1:9
Keep taking the tablets!
As God said to Moses!
Bones, on a roll of obfuscation,
The Nazis, Communists, cults all accuse their critics of being mentally ill.
Yes, of course, and they also successfully shut down dissent in the media and press, which is exactly what the marxist influenced Greens pushed marxist influenced Gillard to do only a few months ago, except she came under great pressure from the general public, media, social networks and political opponents that she eventually dropped it like the hot potato it became.
Oh yes, and it was Bob Brown, remember, who was the main architect of the bill. Why? Because he was offended that, when he became the surrogate PM alongside Gillard, his policies were suddenly thrown up into the spotlight, and people started asking the kind of questions you’re not asking today as you boldly step out to vote for them.
He didn’t like what was coming back at him. His policies were exposed as dangerous and potentially un-Australian. So he sought to shut down the media as much as he could so they couldn’t be critical of the poor little vegemite.
How quickly people forget the camouflaged Greens as they creep back into their forest lairs licking their wounds and emerging with the same policies in a different wrapping.
And you want to help them take the balance of power in the Senate.
What? You think I’m so dull of understanding of Scripture to be moved by your pathetic threat?
Matthew 25
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment,
It’s the words of Jesus Himself.
That’s you two dickheads he’s talking about. And Abbott and Rudd.
So suck on that.
Looks like you’ll be spending eternity with the gays and muslims.
Not such a self righteous prick now are you.
By the way, your use of Scripture is appalling in its exegesis.
Not that I care about Lee Rhiannon but I couldn’t resist making you look like an idiot.
The character assassination of Lee Rhiannon
Last August, Lee Rhiannon after 11 years in the NSW Legislative Council, was elected to the Senate. Even before her election, the attack on her character had begun.
Her sin: her family’s membership of the Socialist Party of Australia which continued to support the Soviet Union after its 1968 invasion of what was then Czechoslovakia. All of that happened more than 40 years ago.
This attack smacks of McCarthyism, the 1950s period named after the right-wing US Senator Jo McCarthy. During this period, people were demonised if they were suspected of having being associated with communism.
The attacks on Rhiannon were partly fuelled by the publication of Mark Aarons’ book The Family File, a book about his own family, its role in the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and the voluminous intelligence files kept on its members by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation.
Aarons included an account of his friendship with Rhiannon, who like him was a child of communists. His point was that when the CPA split in 1968, Rhiannon’s parents and the young Lee herself joined the Socialist Party of Australia (SPA) which continued to support the Soviet Union. Aarons’ father was a leader in the more progressive CPA. While Rhiannon eventually ended up in the Greens, Aarons went on to work for NSW Labor government ministers.
Holding someone accountable for the crimes of Stalin because they did not in their youth publicly recant the ideology inherited from their family upbringing is like holding ex-Catholics responsible for child abuse crimes inside the church.
There are many people who have contributed to public life who have past associations with socialism from its far-left anarchist strains to the various strands of Marxism-Leninism. Socialists played a role in getting women the vote, early struggles for Aboriginal rights and equal pay, just to mention a few achievements. My own brother Jim, who was a popular Labor premier of Tasmania never made any secret of his early association with Maoism.
Like any other politician, Rhiannon should be held up to scrutiny. So what is her political record over the last 15 years and what connection might it reveal to attitudes associated with Stalinism such as secrecy, cover-ups, authoritarianism and the persecution of political opponents?
Before being elected to parliament, she was one of two founders of Aidwatch, an organisation set up to scrutinise and make transparent Australia’s aid delivery. As the only Australian organisation dedicated to such purposes, it continues to have relevance.
After she was elected to the Legislative Council, she helped found Democracy for Sale which charts the influence of financial donations on NSW politics. This work led directly to many reforms aimed at reducing the corrupting influence of campaign finance which hopefully will be continued in the NSW and federal parliament.
She took up the case of Roseanne Catt who was campaigning against 10 years wrongful imprisonment in NSW prisons. As a reporter, I was aware that neither major party nor the NSW government would assist in opening the case.
She worked to improve our pathetic freedom of information laws. Public transport and public schooling were also on her agenda.
Thus far, her campaigns appear to have opposed cover-ups and supported transparency rather than the opposite.
Recently, Rhiannon has attracted attention for her continuing support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the regime in Israel. Like them or not, boycotts are non-violent forms of protest more associated with civil rights movements and Gandhi than authoritarian rule.
It has also been suggested that she is not a true environmentalist – again the evidence shows she qualified as a botanist and was writing about global warming and the environment long before most of us had heard of climate change.
So what of her parents, Freda and Bill Brown? Should she more publicly reject her heritage? Her mother’s Sydney Morning Herald obituary ‘Rebel with many causes’ published after her 2009 death placed her in a radical tradition of women described by historian Stuart Macintyre as “warm, human people”. Freda Brown received an award from the South African government for work opposing apartheid. She very actively campaigned for the rights of women, including the rights of Afghani women to education, during a period when feminism was off the agenda.
Let’s go back to the 1930s, the Great Depression and her grandparents who lived in Newtown, a suburb then famous for its support of the unemployed, where they held campaign meetings for the unemployed in their house.
In her inaugural speech in 1999, Rhiannon acknowledged the contribution of her parents and also of other relatives who had worked as wharfies at Walsh Bay in Sydney’s Rocks. At the time parts of West Circular Quay were being privatised for the exclusive developments where the rich now live. At the time she spoke of how the NSW government’s system of planning rode roughshod over people. In identifying planning as a key electoral issue, Rhiannon showed prescient judgment in foreshadowing a key issue in the 2011 election.
Rhiannon makes no secret of her family’s political history. She condemns the appalling crimes of Stalin while remaining proud of her political family for their work for peace and the rights of their fellow citizens.
Could the real problem with Rhiannon be that she is an effective politician and therefore a threat?
The Greens need to be able to stand up to tough public scrutiny but criticism should deal with contemporary politics rather than the ideological failings of millions of people on both sides of politics during the Cold War. The recent attacks on Rhiannon are character assassination – yet another tool of Stalinism. Fortunately and perhaps in part due to her roots, Rhiannon appears to be made of steely stuff and is unlikely to be deterred.
Rhiannon is soon to join the Senate. Whether or not you voted for her, if she continues to work for freedom of information, reform of political donations, access to public transport and policies to reduce global warming, our democracy will be better off.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/167382.html
Seems to me she makes a better contribution to Australian society than a lot of supposed pastors.
Interesting how Christians enjoy character assassinations,
I suppose it is fun though.
Get over yourself, Bones.
Matthew 25 is talking about nations.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 “And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 ‘for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 ‘I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
Does Australia have a good refugee and asylum seeker record? Yes. Third best per capita on the world. Could it be better? Always.
Is it sheep side help or goat side neglect? Jesus will judge, but all Australians are in it!
Does Australia fund overseas nations who need help? Yes, it has a very good aid record, although the Labour Party recently announced cuts to overseas aid, which the Coalition rebuked and will reinstate.
Am I in Australia anyway? No!
Oops!
Lee Rhiannon ‘no victim of past’
BY:JAMES MADDEN From: The Australian April 28, 2011 12:00AM
CLAIMS that NSW senator-elect Lee Rhiannon has been victimised because of her past links to socialism have been rubbished by NSW Labor upper house MP Luke Foley.
Sydney academic Wendy Bacon yesterday compared the public scrutiny of Ms Rhiannon over her support for a boycott of Israel to McCarthyism.
In an article on ABC website The Drum under the headline “The character assassination of Lee Rhiannon”, Professor Bacon said the high-profile Greens member had been subjected to unfair attention because of the political beliefs she and her parents held in the 1960s.
“Her sin: her family’s membership of the Socialist Party of Australia which continued to support the Soviet Union after its 1968 invasion of what was then Czechoslovakia. All of that happened more than 40 years ago,” wrote Professor Bacon, who is director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism.
“This attack smacks of McCarthyism.”.
But Mr Foley, who has been vocal in his criticism of Ms Rhiannon’s support for the campaign to boycott Israel, said Professor Bacon’s claims were simply untrue.
He said Ms Rhiannon was rightfully subjected to scrutiny over her support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel, which had nothing to do with her political past.
“My criticisms of Lee Rhiannon are around her activities in the here and now,” Mr Foley said. “I think what is important here is the extremism of the Greens . . . and Lee Rhiannon is the most high-profile supporter in Australian politics of the BDS.”
This sums of the degradation of the Right side of politics. This from a report by US Ambassdaor Daniel Clune after a visit by a key Liberal Party strategist in September 2009.
From Wikileaks
Australia: US embassy: A key Liberal party strategist told us the issue
was “fantastic” and “the more boats that come the better”
http://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09CANBERRA1006#efmAyDAzu
When, in her piece about Rhiannon, Wendy Bacon talks about ‘freedom of information’ and ‘scrutiny of the press’ she of course means the very thing the Greens tried to press Gillard into doing by bringing in laws which would have effectively ended freedom of speech and suppressed the media by bringing it under Government control, a move which the Coalition immediately said it would repeal when and if it ever got into power.
This is what caused outcry in the community and caused Gillard to both lose face and back-peddle, deciding to remove the bill before it dod her any more damage.
So, in effect, what Bacon has done is confirm what I told you earlier, that the Greens have an agenda to bring the Press and Media under Government control, which, on the surface looks admirable, and that is the picture Bacon paints in her article, but in fact it would be the most dangerous tool to place in the hands of any Government, left or right.
The media and the Press needs, like the Church, to be free of Government control at all times. Only a left-wing supporter would disagree with this.
Your problem is that, with your Green-tinted glasses on, you can’t see the wood for the trees.
Your explanation of Matthew 25 doesn’t even make sense unless it applies to individuals because nations are temporary constructs. Will the nation of Babylon be judged? Which is now Iraq. What of Germany 1930-45 or is it Germany 2013? Good luck with nations in Yugoslavia. Those nations have changed umpteen times last century.
Nope. Won’t work. Jesus’s reference to ALL nations is to all people.
Which is why other translations use
“He will separate the people one from another.
Bad luck. Didn’t work! You can’t excuse your intolerance of asylum seekers.
The strangers that Jesus talks about who had the temerity to pay to seek asylum..
Better get yourself a flame retarded suit.
So, in effect, what Bacon has done is confirm what I told you earlier, that the Greens have an agenda to bring the Press and Media under Government control, which, on the surface looks admirable, and that is the picture Bacon paints in her article, but in fact it would be the most dangerous tool to place in the hands of any Government, left or right.
Far better to have the power of the media in one person’s hands like Murdoch.
Now isn’t there a country having problems with Murdoch’s Press.
Hmmmmm.
I’d say she’s onto something.
You can’t stop scaremongering can you.
It’s part of your makeup.
What are you trying to say, Bones? Spit it out, man!
You don’t like the boats being stopped? You support the people smugglers because they are really kind people who have found way to help refugees enter Australia?
You don’t want customs or immigration officers to be in control of our borders. You’d rather have people smugglers call the shots because they’re the real heroes here?
You support the overloaded unseaworthy craft being used to ferry refugees, including infants, into open sea?
You support the scuttling of vessels with refugees on board to force the navy to pick them up?
You support the likelihood of some refugees, especially children and infants, drowning in this situation?
You think people should be allowed to enter Australia without being processed first?
OK. So be it.
I support the right of refugees to come into the country. As many as we can take. I will help them come, help them settle, encourage them, as I have always done, and will continue to do.
I prefer that they come by safe, organised and authorised means.
I detest the antics and opportunism of people smugglers and criminals.
I love Australia, and want the best for it.
I do not have to justify my attitude to you or anyone.
Jesus is my judge, and you are not.
Bnes,
You can’t excuse your intolerance of asylum seekers.
I don’t have an intolerance of asylum seekers.
You’re lying again.
How many times do you have to be told this? It’s a figment of your imagination. You are making it up. You are demonstrating a very low level of cognisance in e matter, when I have told you some eight or nine times now that I support refugee’s right to enter the country, as many as can be accommodated.
You do realise that it takes infrastructure, planning and finance to accommodate a large influx of immigrants. Which is why we have an immigration policy, and we tend to do it on a gradual and organised basis.
If you look at the recent pictures of Manus Island, where hundreds of tents have been erected becaue the Government of Australai and PNG have not been equipped to provide adequate housing the for te amount of people coming on the boats, you will see the extent of the disaster unfolding.
Bu you have probably never been to Nauru or Manus. Nauru is a tiny island in the middle of nowhere on he edge of the Equator, with nothing but scraped rock and little greenery. It is as hot as hell and is mosquito ridden with dengue fever rife.
Manus Island was called Devil’s Island for similar reasons. It is inhumane to send people there. The reason it is done is to provide a deterrent to the people being packaged like tins of sardines into dodgy vessels, but also to process people offshore to determine in=f they are genuine refugees or not.
It is cruel. Wrong for refugees and wrong for Nauruans.
You want this to continue. On the basis of humanity alone the boats need to be stopped, because no Australian Government will want to process people onshore as long as there are so many court systems lawyers can take them through before a candidate for asylum can be rejected if they are found not to be a genuine asylum seeker, as many are.
That is because we have a great justice system, but there are lawyers who make a fortune out of abusing the system knowing they are representing false claims.
It is costing Australians more than it should, and would, if we took in some of the thousands of genuine refugees in camps who are seeking a new home. There is no shortage of refugees. We can’t take them all because of the reasons I have outlined with the infrastructure problems we already have.
Goodness, Bones, we are struggling to accommodate Australians born in the country let alone people coming into the country at the present rate. But i suppose you are safely situated in some Queensland suburb with all mod cons.
Where are your practical considerations, or are you merely a morality machine with no pragmatic sensibilities to lean on?
But Bones wants to build ghettos in outer city suburbs where the refugees can cluster in groups of the unemployed and unemployable, not learning the language and not integrating. he prefers a rapid increase in the intake so that we can grow enclaves of dependency and discontent.
To hell with ordered and precise immigration processes.
So Bones, my thought is that, now that Rudd and Gillard between them have imported 50,000 refugees from Indonesia we have to bite the bullet and accommodate all who can demonstrate they they are genuine refugees, which will give us in excess of 48,000 new people coming into our communities.
So, tell us what your policy of integration and accommodation is for these people, and how you will finance this increase in the population, how you will provide jobs, or if you will pay unemployment benefits to them all, and how you are going to do this without increasing the present burden on the taxpayer.
And, without looking or googling, what is the Green policy for this?
Hmm!
‘All the nations” – panta ta ethnê – all the races, or tribes, or people groups.
So this is specific.
Why would God not know who fits with which ethnic group throughout time? Here Jesus gives a collective responsibility for the gospel, not just an individual responsibility.
There are many ethnic groups in Australia alone, including many language groups. The indigenous population alone has several language groups.
If you travel anywhere you will know that the borders of countries are no indication of ethnicity. The Kurds, for instance, traverse several borders and are persecuted at most, and not just by the top-ical nations they find themselves in, but by surrounding tribes who also traverse those regions.
Only God knows the true makeup of ethnicities. This has to be so because borders have changed over time. So he os not necessarily speaking about all Australians brought together, but ethnic groups. I am an Australian citizen, but I am a migrant and my ethnicity is Breton, although my bloodlines are also Celtic.
The migration of persons is no issue for God, but it will be an interesting separation, won’t it. Only God know certain things and only he can make specific determinations when it comes to his judgments and grace.
So this is an interesting prophecy indeed. And with a morality which we should individually heed, with which I agree with you, because ethnic groups are made up individuals with blood lines stretching to Adam and separated by tribes, tongues and nations.
But there is another nation which is separated unto God and which has its citizenship far from this place. It is called the Kingdom of God, and it has become the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, separated form the world and unto God, who call Almighty God father and are the sons and daughters of the Most High.
So, you can have your roots in the ethnicity of your natural birth, or you can be born again, born of God and enter into His Kingdom.
You can judge yourself wanting now and receive his offer of grace, salvation and eternal life, or you can remain of your natural ethnicity and be judged for it.
i can tell you now that all who reject His offer of eternal life will fall short of the glory of God and their righteousness will fail them.
But, on the other hand, have you ever offered even a glass of water to a man or woman pf God? Their reward is yours.
Like Abraham, saints have left the country of their origin and seek a new country.
Do you have kids Steve?
You truly amaze me with the way you just keep patiently answering in a logical articulate way.
I know lots of ministers and have watched many from afar, but you are a Pastor par excellence. Truly.
If Bones ever wakes up and comes to his senses, it will be because of you.
Must be or were a great father.
If I knew anyone who needed counseling or anything you’re the guy I’d send them to. Have a great Sunday.
No doubt you agree with Steves bigotted beliefs. Lets guess you love australia so much you dont live here.
People smugglers have smuggled jews and christians.
Youve both been found out yo be a pair of false christian liberal party wannabes.
I find you and your false chris, for if there were demons that is who you worship, patently disgusting.
You are both liars.
o and your extremely weak and poor explanation of mathew 25 just shows that you and your god is racist.
I never thought Rudd was a Christian anyway.I only watch a bit of political spin here and there to keep up to date with the new lies.
Who would Rudd turn Gay for?
The voters?
Who am i supposed to vote for?
Serious!…Who am i supposed to vote for?
Ideas anyone?
Why am i a CRAB-APPLE?
Who am i supposed to vote for?
Rudd and Abbott will bend over for anyone to get a vote. What we have are two right wing parties.
Good to see real Christians telling it like it is and the prophetic voice of the Church rather than the pathetic idolisation of political parties as seen on here.
‘Jesus weeps’ for asylum seekers: Harrower
The Bishop of Tasmania, John Harrower, took to Twitter to compare Australia with biblical Jerusalem – wealthy but without a sense of compassion.
“Mr Prime Minister, Jesus weeps. Whatever you do for the least of these …,” Bishop Harrower tweeted.
He said Australia’s generosity during the Asian tsunami and, more recently, the Tasmanian bushfires was in danger of disappearing.
“I wonder what’s happening to Australia’s heart,” he said.
“We have been, as our national anthem says, a place of hospitality.
“Yet here we are not being what we’re called to be in the same way that Jerusalem at that time was not being what it was called to be.
“Jesus wept then and I’m sure Jesus weeps now.”
Bishop Harrower described the new policy as “reprehensible” and said Christian leaders Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott should be working on a genuine regional solution that included refugees in Australia.
The emphasis on preventing drownings was a cop out, he said.
“It almost seems that we put up the drowning of the people, which we need to be rightfully concerned for, as some sort of justification for doing something else that seems to me to be quite horrendous,” he said.
“They’re fleeing for their lives so of course they’re going to take risks.”
Bishop Harrower said Australia was living in “cloud cuckoo land” if it thought it could be immune to the problem of millions of refugees on the move internationally.
The bishop said the response to his tweet had been “overwhelmingly positive”.
http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1655377/jesus-weeps-for-asylum-seekers-harrower/
On one occasion a Christian leader stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.'”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was living in a certain country when war broke out. His home was destroyed, his possessions stolen, his workplace bombed and the man himself was left physically and emotionally distraught. Fearing for his life he fled his home country and found himself desperate and alone in a foreign land. An aid worker happened upon this man, but he was on his way to a meeting to discuss ways to distribute government funding, and so he passed by on the other side. So too, a government official on his way to the same meeting, saw this man and walked on by. But a people smuggler came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, applying antiseptic and healing creams. He put the man on his boat and transported him to another country where he would be safe. He funded the man’s journey, as well as his accommodation at the other end and said to those he’d charged with the mans care that no expense should be spared. “I’ll reimburse any out of pocket expenses you may have in caring for this man.”
Navy patrol boats intercepted the vessel towing it back to the place whence it came to the cheer of right wing Christians where both were interned and forced to live in abject squalor.
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who was forced to flee his home country?”
The Christian leader replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
What a funny story!
Interesting because for a start, Bones and Greg probably don’t know whether Jesus told anyone about loving God or loving neighbors, because the NT might be a load of fairy stories like they say the OT is.
Second because he makes up a weird story to try and make some weird point. But wouldn’t it be great if people smugglers were as altruistic as the one in Bones parable1
But the real question is …. will Bones be publishing his phone number and contact details so that refugees can come from other countries and stay with him or in other accommodation that Bones pays for like the benevolent people smugglers. Actually there are probably some homeless aborigines in Bundaberg. How bout it Bones? Are you going to “go and do likewise”???
……..didn’t think so.
Ah Bones. His inconsistency and hypocrisy is matched only by the filthiness of his language and the perversity of this theology.
Wow. On the one hand he thinks Christians should stay out of politics and the govt can’t force people to live by biblical standards, but on the other he thinks the govt should listen to Jesus sermons and live by radical standards that he won’t commit to himself
What a crock.
So, let’s wait for Bones contact and bank account info so that he can pay for some boat people.
One of the lucky men from the Middle East might even be able to marry one of Bones sons.
And you could have koran studies in his living room too.
What a guy!
“prophetic voice”?
Harrower??
Will Bones heed his prophet’s words on gay marriage? Or will he be labelled a false prophet?
Prophetic voice …..
Sounds pretty doesn’t it.
Ah, very good, Bones. So now you’re claiming that it is the people smugglers who are mercifully funding the refugees to cross the seas in unseaworthy, overcrowded boats. Do you have evidence of this, or did you just make it up.
Which of the people smugglers put them unto the boats which eventually sunk and caused the passengers to drown? Estimates put the drownings at 1,000 souls, including children.
Are you saying it is merciful of people smugglers to send people out into the open sea in unseaworthy, overcrowded boats?
Are you saying it is merciful of people smugglers to scuttle boats in the open sea forcing the Australian Navy to, hopefully, rescue them?
Have you ever considered how the people smugglers operate this clever scheme, and why?
You see, they let a boat, an overcrowded, unseaworthy boat, go our deep into open waters, knowing that the Australian Coastal Authorities will pick them up on radar. Did you read that, Bones? Knowing, yes, knowing, that the Australian Navy will be informed of the whereabouts of the vessel.
This is important, because it means, first of all, that the Indonesian authorities, for the last six years, have done nothing whatsoever about preventing the departure of tens of thousands of people in unseaworthy, overcrowded boats heading out into the open sea.
That, believe it or not, is not mercy.
Secondly, it means that the Australian authorities are on constant watch, and the Navy is on constant alert, and are invariably, apart from a few cases, rescuing and assisting the overcrowded, unseaworthy boats to safe haven.
That, my friend, is mercy.
The smugglers are known to use mobile phones to call a number at random in Australia and tell them their boat, which they scuttled, is sinking and the people need rescue. They know that the recipient of the call in Australia will respond and the navy will be dispatched with all haste to rescue the sinking refugees and carry them to safe haven.
That is mercy.
The smugglers are no more paying for the passage of the refugees than you are a Cardinal in Rome. They are taking, according to reports, up to $10,000 per head per boat. That’s in excess of $1.5 million per vessel of 150 refugees.
Do you say the people smugglers provide between 80 and 150 refugees on their crafts with life-rafts or life-belts? If they do how is it that so many have drowned at sea? How many have been lost we do not now about?
Your parable is flawed.
When the poor people were drowning before the cameras in the raging seas of Christmas Island, just after Rudd and Gillard had reopened the borders to people smugglers, Bones was in his living room watching the dreadful news applauding the generosity and mercy of the people smugglers who dispatched them.
Mercy in action, just today…
AN Australian naval vessel has come to the rescue of a boat carrying 65 people northeast of Christmas Island.
HMAS Parramatta, operating under the direction of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre, went to help the suspected irregular entry vessel on Saturday afternoon.
Initial reports indicate there are 63 passengers and two crew onboard.
Those on board are being taken to Christmas Island for the usual checks.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/onboard-latest-asylum-seeker-boat/story-fn3dxiwe-1226703732302
Bones,
Far better to have the power of the media in one person’s hands like Murdoch.
Is it? I thought he only owned 36% of printed media.
It’s the public which buys the product and this gives him a 63% share of the purchased market.
There’s rather a big difference in these two statements.
It means the buying public don’t care for Fairfax or the rest of the 67% of printed media not owned by Murdoch. This could be because they are bored or wary of the content.
But you know only too well, living in Queensland, that the Brisbane Courier, apart from one article recently which got stuck into Rudd for criticising Murdoch with the same claims you are making, is generally a left-leaning rag, and Murdoch owns this paper too.
Murdoch championed Rudd in the Kevin-07 campaign. What’s changed, do you think?
That’s just business, but Murdoch doesn’t own all the media by any means. It’s the people who read his rags who buy them.
36% ownership is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the media in one person’s hands.
Maybe you should rephrase your comment.
Notice I said ‘printed media’, and it is 33% of market ownership not 36%.
Rudd has been saying for weeks that Murdoch owns 70% of the media, but he has been…how shall we put it…misrepresenting the facts, whether knowingly or not, on Murdoch’s media ownership.
I can’t for the life of me understand why a major organisation like the ABC, which just employed a fact checker, hasn’t pointed this out to Rudd or one of his offsiders in one of the many interviews they conduct.
So if he only owns 33% of printed media, where do you get the idea he owns all the media?
Because TV is media but not printed media.
Surely the ABC, a major influence in Australia, is owned by the taxpayer, PBS, or Nine Network, by the Packer empire, Ten and Seven by Stokes, SBS is Government funded, and the list goes on, and these are the primary media outlets on TV.
Murdoch has Foxtel which not a free-to-air station, so people pay to watch his channels. IN other words it is their choice. I think this included Sky, doesn’t it?
Then there is the new media, such as online forums, social networks, blogs, and all the rest, which, again, are chosen by subscribers.
This means Murdoch, although undoubtedly influential, owns a fraction of the media utilised in Australia.
The whole issue, as raised by Rudd and his offsiders, and now by you, is complete fabrication.
And the clever people of Australia can always switch of Murdoch and get their understanding of public affairs from signposts02. They’d get a completely new view of people smugglers……
That parable was classic. Next the Bones Bible will feature Jesus telling us about Pol Pot blessing the children.
What do they smoke up there in Bundaberg??
Message to Bones. I know you think the BIble is full of fairy stories, but it’s better than what you can some up with. Just leave it mate.
What was schindlers motivation in saving the jews.
Wow, Bones is shown to be drastically wrong about so many things it’s hard to keep count, and, rather than admit his error, or apologise for the untruths he has consistently told, he tries for an unrelated equivalence which has already been ignored for it s absurdity.
How about you tell us what Green policy on reducing the deaths at sea will be, Bones. Do you know?
Will the Greens bypass the unsafe, unseaworthy shipping routes presently used by people smugglers and simply fly in all refugees seeking entry into Australia?
Given that the Greens wish to downgrade their involvement with the ANZUS Treaty, and reduce our Defence Force capabilities, how will the Navy be financed if it is needed to assist with the development of Green policy in the early stages, for instance, decreasing the use of unseaworthy vessels out of Indonesia?
Do they have a time period for this, or will refugees need to be on or offshore whist they are processed?
Following on from this, what are the Green’s infrastructure goals and costing for accommodating the refugees?
Do they have a housing scheme for immigrants, and how does this work alongside the housing needs for young people born in Australia?
Do they have job schemes for refugees which will work alongside providing jobs for people born in Australia who are coming into the workforce?
How many people are they expecting to need to accommodate and provide jobs for?
What will be the cost of these schemes?
How long will these schemes be in action? Are there any plans to stop the influx of refugees from Indonesia who are able to finance their journey to Indonesia, or will tis become the stepping off point for refugees seeking entry into Australia?
Will the Greens still maintain contacts with the UN to help bring non-financial refugees into Australia from the camps around the world?
There ya go. That should keep you busy.
You can google this as well as we can Steve.
The Greens have the only dignified and ethical policy on this matter, worthy of being called a Christian response – with the possible exception of the Palmer united Party. PUP calls for asylum seekers to be allowed on planes to Australia without visas, and that they be given a 1-day hearing when they get here. If they arent genuine refugees they will be sent straight back.
This is one of Steve’s evil people smugglers. Undoubtedly if he was Jewish or white he would be a hero and not being put under arrest by the Australian Government.
Steve and Q’s message to Ali Al Jenabi is clear. They don’t want your kind here. Get in the queue and fly here by plane like Jesus would have. They’re obviously cursed by God so why bother helping.
They can’t justify their position scripturally because they stand condemned by the same standards they set others.
They are unreservedly condemned by Jesus’s own words.
They claim that everyone else has pandered to the spirit of the Age when it is they who have succumbed to vicious political policies playing on fears and bigotry.
It can be seen from this thread that they have accepted and defend these lies and are quite happy to say to refugees ‘They are not my neighbour’.
And so we see that behind the facade of Christianity which these two maintain is an irrational fear of those who are different.to them.
The Liberal Party panders to such fears.
People smuggler or the Schindler of Asia?
Ali Al Jenabi is a survivor; he is resourceful and compassionate. He takes his responsibilities to others seriously, particularly toward his family which is central to his existence.
These responsibilities have cost him dearly. He has lost his wife, child and the only woman he loved. I have met Ali on several occasions, once in Villawood with my wife, and he is a good person.
In 1991, 20-year-old Ali, his father and 18-year-old brother Ahmed were picked up by Saddam Hussein’s secret police, thrown into the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and tortured. Put before his bleeding brother whose hands were nailed to a table, they said each time he didn’t answer a question they would take another finger off. It was then that he noticed that his brother’s little finger had already been chopped off. Ali was asked what political group he belonged to. He said he knew nothing of political groups, so Saddam’s thugs chopped another finger off the hand of his brother.
Ali never saw Ahmed again. He and his father were eventually released, but his father was a broken man, so much so that Ali assumed responsibility for the family, his mother and six siblings. His need to provide for the family had him working long hours. When a younger brother fell down a well and drowned, it was Ali who had to retrieve the body. Two other brothers were detained in prison.
Eventually it became apparent that the family would have to leave Iraq and it was Ali who put himself in the hands of people smugglers, first to get into semi autonomous Kurdistan, then Iran, later Turkey, in an attempt to get to Europe, and then Malaysia and Indonesia to try to get them to Australia. Lack of money and dishonest operatives in the informal transport network pushed Ali into the so called people smuggling business, where he managed to get 10 members of his immediate family to Australia plus another 500 persecuted and deserving souls.
All this and a lot more is contained in a tight, powerful and extraordinarily well written book, The People Smuggler, by author and filmmaker Robin De Crespigny. It might have been called ‘The Enabler’ or ‘A Compassionate Man’. This is a book which highlights the provincialism, the meanness, fear and navel gazing of the Australian ruling class. It is a book which glories in the strength, courage and compassion of the human spirit. It is a book which says as much about Australia as it does about Iraq.
Ali was eventually ‘captured’ by an AFP entrapment scheme in Thailand, in April 2002. The AFP’s Iraqi informer, who was residing in Indonesia, was eventually given $25,000 and permanent residency in Australia. The informer was involved in the departure of SIEVX, which again raises questions about the knowledge and involvement of the AFP in the ill fated voyage of that vessel. We also get an insight into the murky world in which the AFP and people smugglers operate in Indonesia.
From the time of his apprehension and detention in Australia, Ali’s story was one of unspeakable cruelty. He was not physically tortured but he was psychologically and emotionally, all in the name of making an example of a people smuggler.
Taken through the court system in Darwin, for a ‘crime’ that does not exist in Indonesia, where it was ‘committed’, Ali was sentenced by a sympathetic judge, which could have been 10 years, but when boiled down amounted to 21 months. The judge in his case, Justice Dean Mildren said,
As to the prospects of rehabilitation, I doubt if he will offend again when he is released. I accept that he has a remarkably stoic and positive outlook on life and will probably pursue his trade as a tailor.
During the course of the trial it was determined and accepted by the prosecution that there was no such thing as a queue of, or for, asylum seekers.
Upon release from prison at the end of his sentence, Department of Immigration officials were waiting for him. One tried to get him to sign a form which would have see him immediately deported to Iraq. Another official took him aside and explained his right to request asylum, a request he made. His case was heard, but nothing was done for nearly a year, although under Australian law a decision should have been given within 90 days. The matter was brought before the Federal Court. A judge ordered the Department of Immigration to hand over relevant documents, amongst which was a recommendation, by the case officer Kate Watson, that Ali be granted refugee status. The Department, presumably at Government direction, sought to pervert the course of justice with respect to Ali’s legitimate claim. They also made life hell for Kate Watson. Nice people.
The matter went to the then minister for immigration, Chris Evans, for a decision. Instead of issuing a permanent visa, he issued a Removal Pending Bridging Visa. Later the new Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, endorsed this decision, which is still in force. It meant that he could not be joined by his Indonesian wife and child, who had since divorced him. Subsequent to that he could not be joined by a childhood sweetheart from Iraq, who, in the absence of his being able to travel to see her, was pushed into a loveless marriage by her family. It has also meant that Ali couldn’t work.
Evans and Bowen could have made a difference but, spooked by Abbott and Scott Morrison, they threw what little moral courage and decency they had to the wind.
Morrison is an interesting study in parochialism and political opportunism. His experience of life is limited, he is as sharp as a tack and twice as flat headed. He has never been confronted with the harsh realities of life, much like Abbott, Rudd, Howard, Bowen and Gillard. He and they, have no experience of war and the human suffering that attends it.
Weak people make tough decisions, usually to protect themselves. Without fear of contradiction, none of the current political leadership has ever been faced with, or been in a position where terrified and pleading individuals sought assistance, protection and succour. They have never seen people released from prison beaten black and blue and reeking of fear. Yet they act as if they have. They crave respect; an impossibility, except from sycophants and rent seekers.
The threat to Australia is not from terrorism, but from the fear of it. An irrational fear, which has led to the demonisation of so called people smugglers and boat people. On this issue both sides of politics play to the lowest common political denominator. Why? Is it xenophobia, racism or both? The number of people coming by boat is insignificant; they do not have the money to come by plane and as De Crespigny’s book shows, the majority have made exemplary citizens, in most cases better than their irrational critics.
Bowen, Morrison, Abbott, Pell, Jensen, Howard, Rudd and Gillard should read this book. It will give them an understanding of real compassion, commitment, humanity and loyalty and maybe then they will become advocates for Ali and others who carry his cross. Howard famously said, in spite of Australian law and UN Conventions, which Australia signed, that he would decide who came to Australia and when. Provincial arrogance; the world is a far more complex environment than Howard was able to grasp.
Rudd infamously and immaturely said, “People smugglers are the vilest form of human life, they trade on the tragedy of others, and that is why they should rot in jail and, in my own view, rot in hell.” Whatever it took, but it didn’t work to keep Rudd and nor will it work for Gillard.
Some people smugglers, like some politicians, are bad and some are good. They exist because of need. The source of the problem lies in the home countries of refugees. People do not leave home on a whim; they do not put themselves in danger for a better job. Vanstone and Ruddock, on triple j the other night, were prepared to trot out the same old gutless platitudes to protect their past flawed decisions. They had not read the book. I suggest they do before making fools of themselves, yet again, in the public domain.
Ali will get there sooner than later with friends like Robin De Crespigny and the thousands of others who will now join with him as a result of the book, the likes of which I have not read for a long time.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3994310.html
It’s funny seeing Steve make fun of the Word.
We see that even he has principles which only go so far.
I wouldn’t have a problem having asylum seekers in my home.
I support the poor from all around the world.
Unlike some here.
This is Steve’s mercy.
Between October 2001 and December 2001, four suspected irregular entry vessels (SIEVs 5, 7, 11 and 12) were intercepted at sea by the Australian navy and towed back to the edge of Indonesian territorial waters. In at least three of these cases, the navy had to contend with incidents such as asylum seekers jumping overboard, threatening self-harm, and/or attempting to sabotage the vessel. SIEV 7, which had 230 people aboard including women and children, ended up running aground in Indonesian waters a few hours after being abandoned by the navy. Three lives were reportedly lost.
The Australian navy also attempted to turn back three other vessels (SIEVs 4, 6 and 10) in 2001. All sank at some point during the course of interception and tow back towards Indonesia. The passengers who were successfully rescued (two were not) were transported first to Christmas Island and then to Nauru in some cases PNG in others.
The fifth and final tow back of the Howard government period took place in November 2003. At this point, Indonesia, which had not publicly protested the 2001 tow backs, hardened its stance. A spokesman for the Indonesian foreign minister told the media that Australia had informed Indonesia of its intended course of action but knew that Indonesia had not agreed to it. Indonesia also threatened to deport the 14 Turkish Kurds on board the towed back vessel to Turkey as soon as they made landfall, though in the end it did not carry out this threat.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2013/opinion/bad-policy-towing-back-the-boats
Apparently being a boat person is ‘unChristian’ according to the Religious Right’s god. They are after all Muslim and Q and Steve don’t want Muslims here either.
Tony Abbott says that boat-people are “un-Christian” for coming to Australia the way they do.
“I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door … I think the people we accept should be coming the right way and not the wrong way … If you pay a people-smuggler, if you jump the queue, if you take yourself and your family on a leaky boat, that’s doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn’t encourage it.”
It is not surprising that Mr Abbott has a view about the moral dimension of refugee issues. It is entirely appropriate that he should consider the matter from the perspective of Christian teaching, given that he trained for the priesthood. I would go so far as to say that more politicians should pay attention to the moral implications of the policies they have to determine.
What is striking is that Mr Abbott could get the matter so spectacularly wrong, both as to the facts and as to the moral equation.
First, the facts. Mr Abbott should know that there is no queue when you run for your life. The recent execution of an Afghan woman by the Taliban (another example of a very well-established pattern) gives some idea of why people seek asylum.
A significant proportion of boat-people in the past fifteen years have been Afghan Hazaras fleeing the Taliban. If an Afghan were to embrace Mr Abbott’s scruples and look for a queue, the obvious place would be the Australian Embassy in Kabul. The Department of Foreign Affairs website informs us:
“The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not publicly disclosed due to security reasons. The Australian Embassy in Kabul has no visa function.”
So where is the queue?
Leave aside that the location of the Australian Embassy is a secret, the larger point is that refugee flows are always untidy. The idea that desperate people will conduct themselves as if waiting for a bus to take them to the shops is not only ludicrous, it reveals a complete lack of empathy, or even understanding, of why refugees flee for safety in the first place.
As it happens, more than 90% of boat-people who have arrived in Australia in the past fifteen years have been accepted, eventually, as genuine refugees. Mr Abbott should understand this: it means that they are people to whom we owe a duty of protection according to our own laws, and according to the obligations we voluntarily undertook when we signed the Refugees Convention.
Second, the moral question. Mr Abbott should know, better than most politicians, that the Christian doctrine he claims to understand and espouse emphasises the message of welcoming and protecting the stranger. The parable of the Good Samaritan is just one example. Nowhere in Christian teaching (and nowhere in any moral code) is the message of kindness to strangers qualified by reference to their method of arrival.
From time immemorial, victims of persecution have fled for safety. It is usually untidy. The flight of Jews from Europe in the 1930s is an obvious example, and one which should focus our minds on the need for a response which is informed by moral learning rather than by political opportunism.
And how is it that it is “the wrong thing” to do whatever you can to try and save yourself and your family? What bizarre twist of reasoning makes it wrong to do whatever is necessary to save your family? Perhaps Mr Abbott needs to watch The Sound of Music again: the von Trapp family were refugees; the nuns were people smugglers; they did what they could to help the von Trapps through the back door.
Third, the “dog whistle” component. Many politicians here and overseas have found it easy and expedient to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment in recent years, just as it was easy, in earlier times, to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.
It can hardly have escaped Mr Abbott’s attention that a significant number of boat-people in recent years have been Muslims. It is inconceivable that he failed to notice that some people, hearing his comments about boat-people being “un-Christian,” would have understood him as criticizing boat-people because they are Muslim, not Christian. It is a sad reflection of the depths to which political debate has fallen in this country that an avowed Christian could stoop to such shabby tactics.
Finally, a question for Mr Abbott. Imagine, just for a minute, that you are a Hazara from Afghanistan. You have fled the Taliban; you have arrived in Indonesia, where you will be jailed if you are found; you can’t work, and you can’t send your kids to school. You will have to wait between ten and twenty years before some country offers to resettle you. But you have a chance of getting on a boat and heading for safety in Australia. What will you do?
I know I would get on a boat; I know that most Australians would get on a boat. I imagine that Tony Abbott would get on a boat. I challenge Tony Abbott to answer this question directly and honestly: What would you do, Mr Abbott, if you were in their shoes?
If Mr Abbott answers this question, we can take another look at his criticism of boat-people as “un-Christian.” If he is not willing to answer it, then we have a fourth reason to disregard his criticism of boat-people.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/07/11/3543738.htm
That was a brilliant article Bones, and has certainly made me think about the nature of ‘people smugglers’
This is Steve’s mercy.
Abbott unveils tough policy for refugees
Tony Abbott, the conservative front-runner who looks set to become Australia’s next prime minister, declared that “this is our country” as he unveiled a tough new temporary visa policy Friday that would strip boat people of basic rights.
Abbott, who opinion polls show is on track to win the Sept. 7 national elections, said he plans a return to the punitive refugee policies of the former conservative administration of John Howard, also flagging an abolition of appeal rights for failed asylum claims.
“This is our country and we determine who comes here,” Abbott told reporters, deliberately harking back to the ruthless stance of veteran Liberal-National coalition leader Howard.
Abbott’s policy will see the 32,000 boat people currently awaiting processing by Australia, and any future arrivals, placed on three-year temporary protection visas if they are found to be genuine refugees.
They will be forced into an indefinite work-for-welfare program, denied permanent residency or family reunion rights and stripped of any appeal avenues over their refugee claim.
Abbott has already announced plans for military-led patrols off Australia’s northwest coast, where people-smuggling ships typically make their way from Indonesia and Sri Lanka, vowing to turn the boats back.
His latest policy was condemned as cruel by refugee activists and the left-wing Greens party, who described it as posturing on the sensitive political issue.
“This is a Tony Abbott stunt to thump his chest and look tough,” Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young told reporters. “There is no national emergency, there is a humanitarian emergency, and nothing Tony Abbott has offered today does anything to deal with that.”
Under Howard’s so-called “Pacific Solution” in the last decade, refugees who arrived on people-smuggling boats were banished to Nauru and Papua New Guinea and held behind razor wire in Spartan detention camps for a prolonged period.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Center, an advocacy and activist group, said that under Abbott, Australia would become the only country in the developed world to deny refugees the right of appeal, accusing both major parties of effectively abandoning the U.N. Refugee Convention.
The ruling Labor Party unwound many of Howard’s policies after it took office in 2007 in favor of a more humanitarian approach, but successive years of record boat people arrivals saw it return to offshore processing in the Pacific and roll out an even tougher scheme.
Under Labor’s current policy — launched in July in a bid to stem the ever-growing tide of asylum seekers — all unauthorized maritime arrivals are being sent to impoverished Papua New Guinea and Nauru for permanent resettlement, regardless of whether they are found to be refugees.
The hard-line plan, which has been criticized by human rights groups and the United Nations, is already having an effect according to Labor, with people-smuggling clients demanding their money back and the flow of boats slowing.
“In the first week after (Prime Minister) Kevin Rudd announced that change over 1,000 people came to Australia by boat. This week it’s about 300,” Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare said.
Immigration Minister Tony Burke said temporary visas did not work as a deterrent last time they were used and denial of appeal avenues will be unlikely to withstand a legal challenge.
“People that get on boats under our government’s policy don’t get Australian visas at all,” Burke said, describing Abbott’s pledges as “irrelevant.”
“So the only possible reason to make an announcement like they’ve made today is for a political desire to look tough and mean just for the hell of it,” he said.
Refugees are a major election issue in Australia, even though they arrive in relatively small numbers by global standards. They accounted for just 3 percent of the world’s total asylum applications in 2012, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/16/asia-pacific/abbott-unveils-tough-policy-for-refugees/#.UhtHdtKALh4
Yes, these are all the political lobbying mantras which go to and fro. All sides have those. It’s an election. My side’s perfect, yours is crap, etc! Google, google google!
You have failed miserably to outline Green policy. Wazza says I should look it up. I was asking Bones, Greg and, now he’s declared himself Green, wazza to tell us, since they are voting for it n the next election.
Wat are the pragmatic policies beyond ‘open the doors to all refugees’?
Again, for Bones’ and readers’ sake, I am for refugees coming into the country, as many as we can take (there, I think that’s ten times I’ve said this on the this thread, now). I help them, support them, and have many friends and acquaintances who are refugees, who still greet my family several years after coming into the country.
So Bones’ infamously continuous droning on about how some mystery opponent of his, whom he calls ‘Steve’, hates refugees and would refuse any of them entry is completely wrong, and, like many arguments he produces, a figment of his imagination. I think he gets off on setting up arguments for his imaginary opponents.
What I have persistently and consistently said is that the journey across open waters in unseaworthy, overcrowded wooden vessels, which are then scuttled as soon as the Australian Navy is in sight is totally unacceptable by any standard and needs to be prevented, if not by the Indonesian side, where they are leaving from, then certainly form the Australian side where they are headed.
Secondly, I have made it clear that it is one thing to have the hart and purpose to bring people into the country, and Australia and UK have a very good immigration intake, but it is another to be able to provide for their needs when they arrive.
I am asking what Bones’, Greg’s and wazza’s proposals are in this regard, and whether the Greens have a policy which gives an outline of the infrastructure, jobs and accommodation needs for a large influx of people form overseas.
Surely you have all thought about this, and have a solution to match your mercy.
And Bones’ unfathomable claim that my doctrine is off beam when he doesn’t even recognise the authenticity of Scripture, nor half the writers, if not all, of the Bible, is quite extraordinary hypocrisy.
By the way, it is the insidious Bones who has continuously used the term ‘evil’ refugees, and ‘evil’ queue jumpers. It is Bones who brought these terms into the discussion.
I have never, ever at any time called any refugee ‘evil’. I do not think they are ‘evil’.
I know and have worked with many; I have married refugee couples, for goodness sake, I have dedicated their children to God where they are Christian, I have conducted the funeral for at least one dear man who passed away, I have trained refugees, including Muslims, in college to be able to enter the workforce in the care industry and in business management.
I live in a street of immigrants, having relocated into a depressed area of London. My direct neighbours are Muslim immigrants from Somalia.
Most refugees I have met and worked with here and in Australia are wonderful people. They are caring people. Most of them are peaceful people. I will not say all because some have come from environments which are hostile and have yet to shake it off, especially some of the youth of migrant families, and we are seeing evidence of this. Some I have been able to talk to. Some will grow into the community. Some will not.
There is far more that I could say, but I do feel I need to justify myself to opponents of reason and faith.
I asked the questions about infrastructure because I see the issues with immigrant families in a new land which has a completely different cultural outlook, language and set of values, ad the need for a pragmatic means of helping people integrate into the community and live fulfilled lives after years, for some, decades of living in strife-filled lands.
I see major issues with the way in which the Labour party, and the Greens, to an extent, have politicised the increasing influx of people in boats from Indonesia. their policies, even those of the ‘new’ labour under Rudd, are ill-thought out and lacking in long-term thought.
I do not particularly like the Liberal/National refugee policies much, either, especially the boat buy-back, which is a nonsense, but they may actually have the will wherewithal to end the control of the people smugglers, although Rudd and Gillard have made tis very difficult, and maybe this time around it will take a lot of pain, and a long time.
The election is about far more than this subject we are discussing, by the way, and Australia needs change, but certainly not the Greens.
Most of the refugees I have worked with have come through viable and legal channels via the many camps, especially out of Egypt. Some have horrific tales to tell. Others have escaped death by the skin of their teeth, and bear the marks to show it.
Now you can do what you like. Attack my political view. Attack my way of doing things, even my arguments, or my opinions.
But never say I hate refugees, nor that I consider them evil. I do not, on either score.
I hate the criminals and people smugglers, no matter how much Bones champions their antics. if there is one good one amongst them, great, but I will not accept the premise that they are merely decent folk who pay for the passage of the refugees with their own money, or that the boat owners and skippers are not in it for the rewards. It is obscene, and an insult to the nation of Australia that they allowed, and even encouraged, to continue with such ease, and Australia has been so powerless to overcome their dirty deeds.
I have given a clear and undeniable indication now that I actively support refugees. I shouldn’t have to say any more. I do not need to justify my actions or opinion.
But Bones’ accusations are beyond the pale and, after several attempts to tell him I support refugees actively, f he persists, he is no more than a moron who lies through his teeth.
I have no desire to continue with Bones as long as his lies persist.
Yes, these are all the political lobbying mantras which go to and fro.
Are you aware of the conditions these people are living in before wanting to stop them leaving Indonesia?
You make it sound like these people are too stupid to know what they’re doing.
These are policies that effect human lives. Which are designed to prevent the stranger reaching our shores. They are used to play on people’s hysteria. That is you btw. You have justified Liberal Party policy on the scaremongering lies of queue jumping and that boat people aren’t real refugees. The usual right wing lies trotted out by the shock jocks and Liberal Party stooges. It’s on this thread for all to see. Abject lies about the marginalised which you have promoted.
Your quotes are straight out of the Alan Jones hate fest.
“Since they have arrived there, why don’t they settle there. They have achieved asylum in a democratic nation. Why would they want to emigrate from Indonesia to Australia?”
“Let those people come in the same way genuine refugees come. ”
“Maybe they can make Indonesia an off-shore check point, and the asylum seekers there could join the queue of asylum seekers and refugees seeking entry into Australia,”
“But we do need to have control of our borders, and we do need to be able to say who comes in and who doesn’t.”
” most of the people on the boats are merely aspirational migrants rather than genuine refugees who have nothing and have fled persecution. ”
“We think this method is a form of blackmail by the smugglers and the passengers who agree to it.”
“Fraser lost credibility politically long ago and is just a grandstander who wishes he was still PM. He betrayed his own side of politics years ago. He’s no longer a liberal.”
This is the mystery ‘Steve’ – an offspring from a union of John Howard, Tony Abbott and Alan Jones.
This is Liberal Party mantra, not based on fact but an assimilation of propaganda.
Btw I don’t hear countries like Italy who are receiving many thousands more refugees than us bleating about the cost of infrastructure. Nor is there talk of sending the boats back across a stretch of sea which has claimed 2000 lives.
As Wazza pointed out there’s only two parties with a remotely Christian (as opposed to anti-Christian) attitude to this policy.
You’re words have judged you. You are clearly two faced and deluded.
Lol at losing the high ground on this debate. You have no right to quote scripture to me again, hypocrite.
From Wikileaks
Australia: US embassy: A key Liberal party strategist told us the issue
was “fantastic” and “the more boats that come the better”
http://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09CANBERRA1006#efmAyDAzu
Bones, you are without doubt, in regards to the way you treat those you debate issues with, not worth discussing things with because you always have to have an abject enemy and make false accusations about people. I don’t know your motives for this, or your need to make people into adversaries.
Now you even claim some kind of virtuous high ground over the very Scripture you reject and deny has any authenticity after taking a few verses out of context and creating a parable which was so otherworldly it was easily dismissed.
You’re right about one thing. I had already determined that using Scripture in any debate with you was futile, not because I do not believe in Scripture, or its bona fide authenticity, but because you are empty of any sense of its value or relevance, and have constantly denounced its authenticity on all counts.
Your appeal to Scripture and claim I had not used it was from that very position, where you had received from me the notification that using Scripture in your presence was like casting pearls which would be trampled. It is. You made it so. You have no virtue nor high ground in the matter. You have simply excluded yourself from the equation. Your snout brought it about.
On the political situation in regards to refugees, I have made myself plain and you have consistently refused to acknowledge my good will towards refugees. I know or sure you either have not read what I have written or are brazenly deceitful in the way you represent my commentary.
I have never, on the other hand, on any scale, refused to acknowledge your good will towards refugees, nor the good will of Greg and wazza. I understand this, and I acknowledge the strength of your argument and passion towards an equitable solution.
No side of politics has the perfect approach.
You, and, the others, it seems, have chosen the Greens as your best placed party in this regard. That’s your choice. The Greens are not anti-Australian, just misguided in their approach to the future of the nation, maybe not in their immigration ambitions, but certainly in other policies, and you get the whole package, not just immigration policies, so they are a risk, in my opinion, and with an agenda which would be detrimental to the country in the long run.
They, in partnership with Gillard, were responsible for the most incompetent and wasteful Government in Australian history, and helped cause the problem we have with unfortunate refugees in camps, detention, and on the shores of Indonesia waiting to enter.
I disagree with your choices, and I have been strong in my convictions, but I am not calling you or Greg or wazza wicked or evil as a result of your convictions, nor using foul and abusive language, as you have towards other people.
I have considered you extraordinarily frustrating for your attitude and inability to tell the truth about what I have said, and the way you have accused me of saying refugees are evil, and levelled the charge that I hate them. This was inexcusable, especially if you are claiming the Christian high ground.
Apart form this, you have, now, some ten times, refused to acknowledge my denial of these spurious and nasty claims and providing evidence of my desire to work with refugees to settle in Australia and UK.
We all want a good outcome for refugees. We differ on the means or the party best placed to produce the best policies all round, including the processes required for settlement, integration and on-going generational management. How it is achieved will take careful consideration and implementation. You have, thus far, been unwilling or unable to provide any workable prognosis for this.
All your other words about me are just that. Words. Some offensive, others unworthy of a schoolteacher. Nothing more. And many of them empty and uninspiring.
So vote Green. It will make little difference to the outcome. I think their influence is waning.
I have not stated who I will vote for. I have the ballot papers already for a postal vote. I will go through it. I am likely to support the Liberal/Nationals this time around because Australia needs change from the current debacle to a Party which will once again make Australia the kind of place the majority of refugees dream of.
Episode 30, 26 August 2013
Rupert tweets, the Tele repeats
Make-up artist Lily Fontana, who took to Facebook to vent over her treatment at the hands of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Wednesday night.
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
Hello Im Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch.
Of course the story of Rude Mr Rudd was bound to make it into the papers.
Its real water-cooler stuff and a shoo-in for the gossip columns.
But should the opinion of a Brisbane make-up artist really be front-page news ?
Sydneys Daily Telegraph reckoned the answer was YES. And having splashed Mr Rude on the cover it brought us the full shocking scandal in a double-page spread inside .
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
And with such a golden opportunity to bash the man they hate the Tele was never going to stop at that.
Nor was Miranda Devine, who was given the chance to sink the slipper right up the front of the paper.
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
But even Ms Devines comments didnt mark the end of it.
Further back in the book the papers National Political Editor Simon Benson took up another full page with a frank assessment of Mr Rudds character .
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
And in the middle of the paper there was even more, with a collection of quotes and comments from the make-up artist and a FRIEND, and also from Malcolm Turnbull and Philip Ruddock, none of whom had witnessed the incident but who were all happy to be given a free kick.
And naturally it was then capped off with an editorial repeating the criticisms that the Teles reporters and columnists had already made
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
For those of you who somehow missed this earth shattering story, it stemmed from a post on Facebook in which make-up artist Lily Fontana told her friends
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
And what a win it was. So excited was the Telegraph by this putdown of the PM that it quoted Ms Fontanas message word-for-word no less than five times.
Here, here, here, here and here. With a shortened version here to make it six.
So how did the Tele justify hammering this trivial story so hard?
First because:
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
And second because, according to the Teles prosecutors,
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
They being things that Rudd has done before.
And sure enough, each of the Teles damning articles cited a list of previous convictions for bad behaviour, starting with four references to Rudds famous Sandwich Spit.
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
That was followed by three reminders of Kevins notorious Hairdryer Gate.
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
Then came two references to Rudds famous
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
And finally there was one reminder from Miranda Devine that a colleague had once called Rudd
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
Now, given that Kevin Rudd is running a presidential-style campaign and that Labor has been attacking Tony Abbotts personality, the PM can hardly complain if voters and the media judge Rudd on his character.
But this is character assassination.
The Tele ran FIVE deeply negative stories about the same incidentall built on the opinion of one woman who was with the Prime Minister for a few minutes.
Rudd says he didnt actually speak to her.
And even the Teles Simon Benson accepts that the claim he was rude to her is disputed …
— Daily Telegraph, 23rd August, 2013
SO … Lily Fontanas opinion is looking like a flimsy excuse for ONE big story, let alone FIVE of the same.
And it gets even flimsier when you read the Teles Facebook page, with reactions from readers, one of whom is a fellow make-up artist …
— Daily Telegraph Facebook page, 22nd August, 2013
— Daily Telegraph Facebook page, 22nd August, 2013
SO, given that there are doubts about this latest offence, what about Rudds previous convictions such as the infamous hairdryer explosion?
Well, according to News Corp Australias own political correspondent, Malcolm Farr, THAT never happened. Almost as soon as the Tele stories were published he tweeted …
— Malcolm Farr, Twitter, 23rd August, 2013
Last Friday morning, when The Daily Telegraph hit the streets, Kevin Rudd was campaigning in Western Sydney which is Labor and Tele heartland.
Asked what he thought about the story, he said it was a beat up, and he then posed a question
why is it that they are constantly taking a club to our government and not putting Mr Abbott under one minute scrutiny? And the answer to that is pretty simple: Mr Murdoch wants Mr Abbott to be prime minister.
— ABC News 24 Breakfast, 23rd August, 2013
Now were not sure whether that charge can really be levelled at ALL Murdochs newspapers.
But Ruperts journalists can be in no doubt about how to please their boss. Only last week he was tweeting:
— Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 20th August, 2013
So lets look at the Telegraph in a little more detail, because there is absolutely no doubt about its bias in this election.
In the first week of the campaign we tallied the Teles coverage and found that exactly half its 80 political stories were slanted against Labor, while none were against the Coalition.
In the last two weeks the result is even clearer.
Out of 107 stories:
59 in our opinion are quite clearly Anti Labor. While just four are anti the Coalition. Only three of the Teles stories are pro Labor, while 19 are pro the Coalition. And the rest are neutral.
Looking through the pages its also clear that its not policies or performance that Murdochs paper is attacking. Its Rudd himself, whom they paint as a psychopath, a narcissist, a bore and a cheat, and a great deal more.
— Daily Telegraph, 12th August, 2013
— Daily Telegraph, 22nd August, 2013
Some of the negative storieslike those one-sided reactions to the two debates at least have some foundation.
Others are triumphs of invention, like these three shocking beat-ups
Trevor Chappells underarm ball
— Daily Telegraph, 20th August, 2013
Kev tells tales of his time on the front line
— Daily Telegraph, 14th August, 2013
— Daily Telegraph, 22nd August, 2013
All these stories, which carry the byline of the Teles political reporter Gemma Jones, make the Prime Minister look angry, dishonest or not to be trusted.
The Ruddbo story accused him of trying to:
— Daily Telegraph, 14th August, 2013
The evidence for this claim?
He told a group of soldiers in Townsville that he had been to Afghanistan five times and twice been outside the wire.
The Trevor Chappell underarm story relied on reports that Rudd had insulted lawn bowlers at a club northern NSW by not using THEM for a photo shoot. Yes, really.
And the Cranky PM story, which accused Rudd of being negative, angry and lashing out … well lets get the Tele to explain that one for us:
— Daily Telegraph, 22nd August, 2013
Yes, believe it or not, that was the story.
And yesterday The Sunday Telegraph followed up with more of the same, only this time they splashed it on the front page
EXCLUSIVE: PM SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN FOR SYRIA TALKS BUT FINDS TIME TO STAR IN TV COOKING SHOW
— Sunday Telegraph, 25th August, 2013
Once again the line was that Kevin is a big noter who cant be trusted .
What the Prime Minister didn’t say was he had his taxpayer-funded VIP jet waiting so he could fly home to Brisbane for the afternoon to appear on a cooking show, the ABCs Kitchen Cabinet.
— Sunday Telegraph, 25th August, 2013
Rudd did go to a briefing on Syria that evening.
And Tony Abbott has taken time out of his campaign to appear on Kitchen Cabinet too.
Yet once again the Tele managed to cook this morsel into the dish of the day.
And the other Murdoch tabloids happily turned on the gas, with Melbournes Sunday Herald Sun, Adelaides Sunday Mail, Perths Sunday Times and Brisbanes Sunday Mail all joining the roast
He wasnt saving Syria. He was slaving in the kitchen.
— Sunday Mail, 25th August, 2013
Not surprisingly, on the Telegraphs Facebook page last week, there has been scorn by the bucketload
— Daily Telegraph Facebook Page, 21st August, 2013
— Daily Telegraph Facebook Page, 22nd August, 2013
Now whether this campaign will damage Rudd at the ballot box is open to debate.
But the PMs popularity has plummeted since the campaign began.
And the Teles intentions are certainly clear.
Back in April, News Ltd as it was known then, told advertisers that the Telegraphs readers are:
— News Australia Sales, Daily Telegraph, April, 2013
We havent got time to tell you in detail what the other Murdoch papers are doing.
Theyre not as bad as the Tele. But … Mebournes Herald Sun has had its moments
— Herald Sun, 16th August, 2013
— Herald Sun, 20th August, 2013
And Brisbanes Courier-Mail has at times tracked the Tele
— The Courier-Mail, 12th August, 2013
— The Courier-Mail, 22nd August, 2013
The Courier-Mail has also tucked into the Prime Minister for getting fat
— Courier-Mail online, 19th August, 2013
Read more on this story
And of course The Australian has also been there to put the boot in through its columnist Janet Albrechtsen …
The seemingly sunny PM has some disturbing personality traits
— The Australian, 21st August, 2013
Of course, why didnt we see it before? Hes a serial killer and a cannibal to boot.
Almost 50 years ago, Rupert Murdoch was asked by the ABC if he enjoyed running a newspaper empire and telling his editors what to do.
Rupert Murdoch: Well, theres only one honest answer to that, and thats yes. Of course one enjoys the feeling of power.
— ABC, Five Australians: Rupert Murdoch, 25th July, 1967
In that same program, Murdoch volunteered his views on press freedom, and he was very clear about what was needed in Australia to ensure that freedom was preserved.
— ABC, Five Australians: Rupert Murdoch, 25th July, 1967
Shall we just hear that again? Freedom of the press must not just be one-sided, for a publisher to speak as he pleases, to bully the community.
I couldnt have put that better myself.
And if you want more on this theme, youll find plenty more on our website. But for now thats all from us. Goodbye.
“Leave a Reply…Go on, you know you want to!”
That is so enticing.
And now for another perspective….
Do you all use google earth? I do, and whenever I do I am staggered at the amount of space Australia has. My honest personal feeling is that if we did better with technology -esp regards to water, there should be space for millions of people to come. As long as they are people who want peace and don’t want to bring their conflict with them.
Why it takes so long to process people I have no idea, but maybe I would if I were involved in doing it.
I don’t have an opinion on this issue except that ideally, I’d accept anyone to come who wants. I know lots of good decent hardworking people who have wanted to come to Australia and would have been ideal who didn’t because of the high standards involved. So, it’s tough when you see others who get in through illegal means.
But re this debate, it seems obvious that Bones should at least acknowledge Steve’s good intentions. He ACTUALLY WORKS and LIVES among refugees. It’s bad form to not recognize that he isn’t a refugee hater.
@Greg
re Rudd. He does seem like a hothead and a narcissist, (I love his Chinese speech attempt when he goes bananas), but lots of good leaders have had character flaws.
That’s why I’m not interested when people talk about a politician or pastor who lost his temper at the fish shop last Friday, or didn’t say hello.
Peter, Paul, Moses, Churchill. Macarthur, Paton, Greg, Bones – nobody’s perfect.
Everyone thinks there’s media bias, no matter what side you’re on. Everyone also things the ref is on the other side. Or Dad favors your brother.
haha
I just got an email sent to me. Have any of you seen it? It shows refugees being picked up by the Aussie navy. One guy is super fat, the girl has designer clothes and nail polish and the guys look like they are on steroids and workout twice a day trying to be the next Arnold.
Then it says
“AUSTRALIA.
THEY ARE NOT ASYLUM SEEKERS OR REFUGEES. THEY ARE ILLEGAL ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS.
THEY ARE BEING SENT HERE BY INDONESIA, WHO ALLOWS THEM TO ENTER, GIVES THEM VISAS AND DOES NOTHING TO STOP THEM.
INDONESIA IS NOT AUSTRALIA’S FRIEND OR ALLY – INDONESIA HAS BEEN SCAMMING AUSTRALIA FOR YEARS.
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO CONFRONT INDONESIA TO DEMAND THAT THEY STOP THIS PRACTISE.
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO SEND THESE BASTARDS BACK TO INDONESIA.
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SQUANDERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THESE BASTARDS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO STOP THEM.
WE NEED TO DO WHAT JAPAN DOES.
JAPAN DOES NOT HAVE EXPENSIVE DETENTION CENTRES BECAUSE IT REFUSES TO HAVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DETAINEES.
JAPAN IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE UN CONVENTION ON REFUGEES, SO IT IS NOT OBLIGED TO PROCESS ANY OF THEM.
JAPAN UPHOLDS ITS BORDER PROTECTION BY REPELLING THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AT GUNPOINT.
DOES ANYBODY CRITICISE JAPAN FOR THIS? THE ANSWER – NO!
DOES ANYBODY IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON JAPAN FOR THIS? THE ANSWER – NO!
DOES ANYBODY ACCUSE JAPAN FOR NOT BEING HUMANITARIAN? THE ANSWER – NO!
JAPAN DOES NOT SQUANDER TAXPAYER MONEY DEALING WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TRYING TO SCAM THEIR SYSTEM.
JAPAN DOES NOT SUFFER PROBLEMS WITH MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, MUSLIM TERRORISM OR MUSLIM CRIME.
AUSTRALIA NEEDS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT JAPAN DOES.
WE HAVE TO STOP THIS CRAP. WE HAVE TO STOP INDONESIA DOING THIS TO US.”
Is this email doing the rounds in Australia or something.
(yeah, my inbox is full of forwarded jokes and stuff like this)
PS, how do you politely tell relatives you aren’t interested in puzzles, dirty jokes, pictures of women with big breasts, and tear jerking stories that say you have to pass them on to ten people or else…..
LOL…haven’t seen that one…and if it were true would be worth discussing – but its not true – see how a bit of research (google is good) can help!
Click to access info_seekres_e.pdf
Don’t believe everything you get in your inbox Q, however it is true that Japan doesn’t use detention, but not because they don’t let anyone in!
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488196.html
q, you can firward those emails to me. You can keep the tear jerking stories though.
@Greg
Don’t worry, if I believed everything that came in my inbox I’d ….
well, probably be even crazier.
I usually go to an urban legends site.
As for Japan, ironically I know a political refugee who has been on Japanese social security for years.
Unfortunately, older relatives forward on all sorts of crazy stuff.
Just hope they don’t get any from Nigerians offering to deposit millions.
An angel of the Lord spoke to a man in approx 2 AD and told him that his son was in danger from the government and to go to another country. They left surreptitiously, under cover of darkness, and there is no evidence that they informed the authorities or had the appropriate visas.
So they were essentially queue jumping asylum-seekers, and the angel that encouraged them to make the dangerous journey was akin to a people smuggler.
Do you also condemn these poor people, and their angelic guide?
No that’s not right Wazza.
According to Tony Abbott, Jesus would use a plane.
It is un-Christian to go by boat and not stand in a queue.
Even if it doesn’t exist.
Tony Abbott
“I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door … I think the people we accept should be coming the right way and not the wrong way … If you pay a people-smuggler, if you jump the queue, if you take yourself and your family on a leaky boat, that’s doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn’t encourage it.”
We can see why he didn’t make it to the priesthood.
The same man had been ordered to return to his place of birth for the Roman census, which is why Jesus was born there in the first place. I guess your theory is shot by the same Word you attempt to use as a gotcha!
We live in very different times. I have dual citizenship, but even as an Australian citizen I can’t travel from UK to Australia without a visa or an Australian passport even though I have a British passport.
In Europe the are virtually no borders, but people still need proof of identity for many things.
Are you seriously suggesting that people should be ferried in dodgy vessels to Australia without visas? Are you ready for the vast influx of people from non-refugee places like Indonesia, China, in fact the whole of Asia is on your doorstep and would love to come into the wonderful Welfare State of Australia.
Yes, very sensible, wazza. Personally, I am not concerned about who goes where. As far as I am concerned, if the world comes to us it saves us going to them with the gospel. Bring it on. as long as you and Bones and Greg are happy to have a rapid and very interesting change of lifestyle and political arrangement to the one you presently have in the gloriously affluent nation of Australia.
In Europe, we already have the world in our kitchen, and it is a very interesting place to be.
I am coming to the conclusion that you don’t actually think through very much of what you say.
Incidentally, Egypt was a part of the Roman Empire, as was Israel, when Jesus was born, so there was no border, strictly speaking to cross. They were moving about within the Roman Empire.
There is nothing in Scripture to indicate whether or not there were border crossings, so to say they were refugees crossing a border into another land is stretching Scripture somewhat.
The Roman Emperor, Augustus, had, when Jesus was about to be born, called for a census, and Joseph, being of the lineage of David, had to go to Judaea, and specifically to Bethlehem, to be registered with his wife, Mary.
Now this census was conducted throughout the Roman Empire, so it was a form of data collection, whereby citizens were identified according to their lineage, place of birth and country of origin.
It was much later that Joseph and Mary were permitted to travel within the Roman Empire to Egypt to escape the tyranny of Herod in Bethlehem. The atrocities were isolated within the region surrounding Bethlehem, and not widespread, but escaping to Egypt ensured their safety, as Herod would not have had jurisdiction here.
Egypt had been annexed into the Empire at about 30 BC, it wasn’t as if they were going into a completely foreign land, but one of the provinces of the Empire.
Alexandria was a Greek and Jewish settlement named after Alexander the Great, where many Jews had settled, so there would be no reason why it wasn’t one of likely places for the Jewish couple, Mary and Joseph to go with the infant Jesus.
______________________________
On tributes, Jesus, when in his ministry, was asked about paying homage to leaders, particularly with taxes, and his response was that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what’s is God’s, which indicates that we need to adhere to the civil authorities wherever necessary.
If the authorities determine that there should be rules about entry into a land then I am certain Christ would tell us to adhere to the conditions stipulated.
So what you are saying is that if the authorities in Egypt had any sort of rule about entering their land – then Joseph and Mary should have obeyed it even if it meant risking the life of Jesus (and hence, presumably the salvation of the entire world and God’s cosmic plan for the universe)
You just can’t take a correction of your facts gracefully, can you, wazza? You have to find a snarky response.
What are you trying to prove exactly? That Mary and Joseph broke some refugee migrant law? Apparently they didn’t. Your great gotcha moment was defused.
I have patently shown with a historical context that Egypt was part of the Roman Empire so Mary and Joseph were merely moving from within it as registered citizens.
Yes, even they had to be registered in the Empire.
Your hypothetical is just that – hyper and pathetic.
It’s more probable that Joseph and Mary had relatives in Egypt they could stay with until it was safe to move back to Israel. The diaspora was widespread throughout the Roman Empire.
Jews came up to Jerusalem once a year, remember, to celebrate the Passover and Pentecost. The came from different lands where they had settled. There was a large community, even then, in Alexandria.
And, of course, it was common for people to travel up and down the trade routes from Egypt up to Damascus and even further.
It’s more probable that Joseph and Mary had relatives in Egypt they could stay with until it was safe to move back to Israel. The diaspora was widespread throughout the Roman Empire.
It’s more probable that they didn’t.
It’s funny watching you squirm to justify your own disgust of people seeking escape.
It was more dangerous to smuggle Jews in WWII than arrive to Australia in a leaky boat.
By your definition they shouldn’t have done it because it was dangerous.
And if I was living in a shithole I’d pay to put my family in a leaky boat to seek a better life somewhere else..
And so would you.
There is evidence of passport-like procedures and restrictions on travel in Roman Egypt. It was certainly not the kind of free-for-all borderless internationalist paradise you are claiming (but not recommending for today)
If there were indeed passports, entry and exit taxes, and some form of approval granted to cross the border, do you think Joseph complied to all of these requirements? If he didnt, do you condemn his actions as being inappropriate?
The above quote is from “Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire” edited Colin Adams, Ray Laurence, Pg 157
And now for something completely different ….
Q will set up a hammock and try to snooze in no man’s land.
…I don’t think there is a definitive Christian position on immigration/refugees.
Wazza, everything you’re asking is a mute point. You can’t find a Biblical precedent for any point you’re attempting to raise which will demonise a counter view to your own. And Bones is just continuing his nasty, juvenile attack on anyone who doesn’t agree with his views, which is par for the course, really. His disingenuous style of argument is appalling.
As I said, vote Green and see what the impact of your vote is. My personal view is that the Greens will diminsih as a force at this election. But, there you go. It’s only an opinion.
Australia is a great place and, on the whole, welcoming of refugees. The means of entry is and should be being debated, but it needs to be done in a civil manner.
Should Joseph have applied for the appropriate visas (such as they were in his day) and paid the appropriate levies or not?
Even your attack/lap dog Q has abandoned you and is sitting on the fence, so you know that you must be losing the argument.
By all accounts Q is fed up to the teeth of the disingenuous content of the thread. You only call him ‘lap dog’ because you can’t stand the fact that he’s run all over your ridiculous claims. He thinks very much for himself, which is why you struggle to get your message through.
If you think you’re in any way ‘winning’ some argument you are deluded. You are trying to save face after your attempt at an argument was thwarted. I’ve moved on. Nothing more here to see, wazza. It’s been shown that you simply haven’t thought out any of the Green’s policies and can’t even articulate them when requested.
You’ll vote Geens and see your candidate lose and the Party diminished. Where’s the advantage to that?
Just to help you, wazza, all you did with your attempted ‘passports’ evidence was prove my point that Mary and Joseph, to travel to and from Egypt, must have had some kind of official documents or evidence of their citizenship and nationality, hence the information I gave you on the census and registration of Joseph and Mary.
They were obviously travelling legally and identifiable. There is no hint that they had any difficulties entering or leaving Egypt, apart from the actual distance travelled, which was a well used trade route, and would have been in the company of some caravan. They were escaping from Herod’s atrocities, yes, but not travelling as refugees but as registered citizens within the Empire. They were in no way living illegally in Israel. They left to protect the child.
Your attempt at creating some comparible scenario is pure speculation and not based in fact. Your eisegisis was found out.
Huh? Of course they were refugees … They were seeking refuge in another country because they were likely to be persecuted in their own country.
And you say it is not comparable to the plight of refugees in general? If that is the case, I dont know what else in the Bible would be comparable. Arent we meant to turn to scripture for examples of how things should be done. Is not the Bible the sole or at least the major source to turn to on ethical matters?
Now it dosent take too much thought to see that if the leader of a country said that all boys under 2 years old are to be killed, that word would have spread quickly. There would have been an enormous rush to the borders. If the authorities wanted to achieve their aims, they would deny these people permission to leave the country.
Was Joseph, or indeed any parent wrong to have illegally exited the country and enter another one?
Lapdog??
I think you missed my point. I haven’t abandoned anyone on this issue.
I don’t have an opinion. But more than that I’m saying that I don’t see that there is a real biblical position that anyone can be dogmatic about.
A country can have a policy of anywhere from 0 immigration to letting anyone in who comes on the shore or sinks before it.
It’s like giving to the poor. 10 bucks a week or all you have. There’s likely to be a wide variety of opinions.
But you might just be revealing something significant about yourself there Wazza. Maybe some people see themselves as “liberal” so then all their opinions are
predictable.
Others just think for themselves. Which might explains why Steve and I have different opinions, whereas you guys have to step in line with each other.
Maybe you guys could just try being men and not little girls who just take an opposite position on everything.
The only thing I’ve said on this topic is that I don’t care what some guy wearing a UN hat says Australia should do.
Nice try Wazza, but your lame insult backfired.
Remember. “No weapon formed against Q will prosper”
🙂
Q is more interested in penises and vaginas then people seeking shelter.
Which was the norm for many Christians in 1930s and 1940s Germany and Europe.
Steve seems to think that Mary and Joseph being refugees is bad.
Not sure why.
Yes, he’s trying to convince us that they just went to visit the rellies for the weekend.
No funny stuff like running for your life.
Strange.
What has been made plain to you, wazza, and which you completely ignore, is that Joseph was not acting illegally. He was plainly acting within his known rights to move from Bethlehem to Egypt.
There is no comparison with the ‘unlawful non-citizens’ who are herded unto unsafe, overcrowded boats without identification, exit visas from Indonesia, or entry visas into Australia, or any kind of verifiable documantation.
Joseph didn’t have to unlawfully cross any borders or be challenged for not having relevant documents because he remained within the legal requirements of the Roman Empire, had already been registered in the census, and was not seeking sanctuary on a permanent basis in another country as an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ who had t be detained to be processed.
We know that Joseph and Mary returned to Israel when Herod died, but moved to Nazareth to avoid the attention of Antipas, Herod’s son.
They were not on the run from Israel, but from Herod.
_____________________________
Isn’t interesting to watch how Bones’ demeanour deteriorates in direct relationship running parallel to his increasingly stated rejection of Scripture.
Gosh! Bones has found a lap dog!
So, wazza, are you ending that there was a large community of Jews in places like Alexandria?
It indicates, of course, that Egypt under the Roman Empire was for a time a safe haven for Jewish communities, and they were, by this time, a well established community.
Your mockery of the notion that they could have found refuge with people they knew, or within an established community demonstrates your inability to reason anything out wi any degree of impartiality.
Qs theory of liberal groupthink is proving correct.
I agree…but I think my position is closer than yours is
Should say…
So, wazza, are you denying that there was a large community of Jews in places like Alexandria?
I found a lap dog once…funny thing, it was in my lap!
Wazza and I agree on the major parties’ policies of refugees and that’s called Groupthink.
Q and Steve agree on condemning gays and that’s called Christian unity.
Just because there was a large community of Jews in Alexandria doesn’t mean Joseph and Mary didn’t have problems getting there…the. Bike says that they escaped in the middle of the night: people on those days didn’t leave in the middle of the night for a journey…they left in the morning so they had time to travel while they could see. They were ESCAPING!!! The were seeking REFUGE from a life threatening despot!!! They were REFUGEES!!! So what if Egypt let them in willingly…all the more should we let refugees in willingly!
I agree with wazza and bones…that’s trinitarian theology!
Your mockery of the notion that they could have found refuge with people they knew, or within an established community demonstrates your inability to reason anything out wi any degree of impartiality.
More like your clutching at straws. It’s pretty much universally accepted that Mary and Joseph were refugees.
That seems to be a problem for you. Why?
Of course they were refugees in that they were leaving Bethlehem. They left in the night because they were warned. I have said they were escaping Herod.
But a refugee seeks refuge. They had it already in Egypt.
They did not have to be processed to enter Egypt.
But your attempt at some kind of equivalence is idiotic after all the evidence I have put in front of you that there is no comparison. They were registered in the Empire. Israel was merely a province of the Empire. Egypt was another province.
Australia is not a part of the Indonesian empire yet. It is a separate sovereign nation. We are not recieving Indonesian refugees, if we even attempted it there would be outcry from the Indonesian government and military. We have no treaty of exchange of refugees with Indonesia. The refugees are leaving without being processed from the Indonesian side, so the Indonesians are complicit.
Have you ever been to Indonesia? It is no simple matter going in or out. You need a passport and a visa. It has to be stamped in and out. They are very, very strict about it. Why are they allowing people to leave without any documentation from Indonesia in unseaworthy, overcrowded vessels?
It has no resemblance whatsoever to Joseph’s flight from Israel.
You have been clutching at straws, bending theology and trying to produce a straw man which doesn’t even add up historically.
A trinity of lap dogs! And all barking mad and barking up the wrong tree.
It’s not a problem for me, Bones. It’s a problem for lappy wazza because he can’t make their flight fit the people smugglers’ model.
What the Trinity of Lap Dogs (ToLD) never mention or acknowledge is that there is already an expansive immigration program in action in Australia, which helps refugees in camps come into Australia after being processed overseas.
(Ironically for wazza and his theory, one of the places contemporary refugees come from is Egypt, where there are major camps. Perhaps his version of Mary and Joseph could have waited there and gained a visa for Australia!)
What the ToLD do is pretend there is no policy, no program, and no refugee is ever let in, because the other parties are too mean, so the only-a-little-bit-marxist Greens will somehow introduce a hitherto never thought of policy to allow refugees in.
Yet it has been repeatedly pointed out to the ToLD that there is a generous refugee intake, they are very well taken care of, and have access to all the facilities and welfare agencies all Australians are entitled to.
The people smugglers’ illicit program has somewhat obscured this and created a separate problem which does directly affect the aspirations of people in camps who are applying throughout the correct channels to enter Australia.
The ToLD are political animals who wag their tales at the first party to offer them a biscuit.
It seems Bones’ ‘kind and merciful’ people smuggling gangs didn’t even live in Indonesia, but were in Australia.
They seem to all be of Middle Eastern extraction, too.
Strange how Bones has glorified these people as kindly good Samaritan types when the AFP is touting them as alleged criminals and members of syndicates.
The most telling sentence, in context with the discussion here, is the one which states that they had three search warrants to carry out arrests in detention centres.
Of course, Bones and wazza see nothing wrong with the criminal activities of these people and consider them merciful, even suggesting that the people smugglers are kind enough to pay the passage of the people they import for cash.
Pigs also fly.
People smuggling gangs arrested in Australian raids
FIVE alleged people smugglers have been arrested in a major Australian Federal Police operation across the country.
Officers swooped on the three Afghanis, a Pakistani and an Iranian this morning and charged them with people smuggling offences following a long-running investigation.
The arrests were made in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria and all were expected to face court later today.
AFP official Steve Lancaster said three search warrants had been carried out in detention facilities but said that did not mean the people were operating from there.
He warned that more arrests would follow in the operation, which has been touted as the biggest people smuggling cracking down yet.
“I will guarantee further arrests will be made,” he said.
He said the people were involved in several smuggling networks and were involved in the planning and recruiting of unauthorised maritime arrivals on 132 vessels bound for Australia.
The most recent arrival was in July but date back to May 2012.
“These people were major players in the syndicates,” he said.
The arrests come after months of investigations across all mainland states and territories involving more than 100 investigators.
Information was provided by more than 200 members of the public.
The arrests take the total to 26 the number of people arrested on people smuggling charges since 2009.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/afp-raids-smash-people-smuggling-rings-across-australia/story-fni0xqrb-1226706229577
People rejoiced when the gestapo captured people smugglers too.
Your point is?
Ali Al Jenabi was also arrested as an evil people smuggler.
He’s known as the oscar schindler of asia.
That would have made your day.
I’ve discussed this with work mates, and I cant see how “People smuggling” should be illegal.
Firstly they are not “smuggling” people in to Australia, they are not hiding them and are declaring them when they get there.
Secondly, if it is not illegal to travel to a country and ask for asylum, how the hell is it illegal to provide them with the transportation to do so?
I would have though you right-wing conservatives would cheer on these people who have seen a need and run a business to provide these services to people. But no, you think they are the lowest of the low.
Anyway, the police will always conduct raids in the lead up to the election. Anyone remember Dr Haneef?
Egypt is very topical on this thread, because you’re all in denial!
Poor old Bones is now so used to using deceptive arguments he actually believes his own reports.
Unauthorised maritime arrivals will always be illegal, chaps.
I suppose you’d rather we have no coastal surveillance so the brothers can smuggle, er, sorry, import pharmaceuticals to help the people with dependencies have cheaper access to substances to receive their addictions, or the people who shoot for sport and fun can ‘import’ firearms, explosives and weapons to support their hobbies, or even bring in goods which people have to pay import taxes on.
Of course they could always try EBay!
But look, wazza, Bones so easily sold his Good Samaritan people smugglers, oops, sorry, importers story to you that you should be encouraging him to get into politics. Being of the gullible sort, you’d vote him in at the drop of a hat.
Smuggling drugs or firearms is not the same as helping people on the run from danger to enter the country to seek protection.
I would vote for Bones, he makes a lot more sense than you, the Christian Values institute, or indeed the Labor and Liberal policies on this issue.
And I heard on the ABC Religion report on Radio national that there is a Christian vote composed mainly of Pentecostals and Evangelicals who also support a more humane line on Asylum Seekers – so I dare say they would vote for him too. This is one of the most hopeful and positive bits of information on Pentes I’ve heard in the media for a long time.
I would laso like to see a less confrontational policy, but it is very cinfused as long as people smugglers call the shots.
So why hasn’t anyone considered using the Indonesian departure points where people are gathering as off-shore processing points? What would be the issue with having a Consulate presence there?
If people have travelled that far from Iran, Pakistan or Iraq, how did they get there? Which countries would you consider to have refugee problems? It seems that Sri Lanka has sorted its civil war and there is less of an emergency. Would you still take in Sri Lankan travellers who request asylum?
I have no issue with refugee intake, as I have said countless times on this thread, but there needs to be some kind of order, and Australia needs to be making the final decisions about who is a genuine refugee.
Bones makes little sense, and uses foul language to excentuate his nonsense. He can’t answer the tough questions I have put before him on infrastructure, accommodation and financial support on an ongoing basis. You have also skirted the issue.
So why hasn’t anyone considered using the Indonesian departure points where people are gathering as off-shore processing points? What would be the issue with having a Consulate presence there?
There is a UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) presence there which assesses claims and grants refugee status (this is from the UN, not necessarily recognised by Indonesia or Aust). The process is meant to be that assessed refugees wait there and are eventually resettled in Australia if accepted — this is the so-called ‘queue’ .
The problem is that Australia hasnt taken anyone from the queue for three years. Unable to work, with no indication of their future and dependent on welfare from international agencies, some people take boats.
One way we could stop the boats is to regularly take people from the front of the queue for processing and eventual resettlement into Australia.
Yes. And thank you very much for at least acknowledging there is a queue of sorts, although that wasn’t the main reason for my reticence towards receiving refugees from Indonesia, which has more to do with the illicit maritime flotillas than the people themselves.
It is easy to see why the Australian authorities are balking at increased numbers when they cannot contain the existing numbers, not only in off-shore camps, but in hotel and hostel accommodation in Australia, which we do not hear much about.
And do anyone have any idea how much money is changing hands in these deals, or if any officials are involved?
Surely if we make the new goal of refugees to enter Indonesian ‘camps’ we are determining that only the economically viable will be able to win the prize of entry into Australia.
Anyone see Amir Shojaei’s selfie with 35,000 bucks today?
Another Good Samaritan people smuggler ….
Better be careful not to intrude into the black/white delusional world some live in around here.
Thankfully I get to enlighten young minds from the darkness of racism and populous politics by presenting facts.
There have only been a few countries who put innocent people in concentration camps.
Disgustingly we’re one of them.
People smugglers they are not, lawful and heroes instead – we have to change the language
The misappropriation of language and abuse of semantics in reference to ‘perceived people smugglers’ has to begin to change so we do not further erode compassion, and continue to skew the moral compass, bend and circumvent the rule of law- domestic and international.
People who are assisting people in their flight from persecution and in the right to asylum, in accordance to our laws, domestic and international, should be honoured as the heroes they are. The wait for this should not be a generation removed, as is generally the case in the unfolding of social justice and in the eliminating of racism and various abominable prejudices.
There is nothing more honourable than living the moral conviction of saving the lives of others. The 600 souls who have drowned since 2007 in their flight to our shores are the fault of the policies of the Australian government.
Winton Higgins in his book – Journey Into Darkness – describes a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Israel where a note from Australia rests. It is from the Evian Conference 1938 where 22 nations of the Western world convened to discuss the Jewish refugee ‘problem.’ Australia’s response, from T.W. White, is captured in 13 words alone on that note – “We don’t have a racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.”
Contemporaneously, equivalent racism is mangling the Australian national consciousness. Many are arguing we don’t want to import the ‘Muslim faith’ when this should not even be a discussion point. What has this got to do with humanity? I have interviewed hundreds of Asylum Seekers and all they are seeking is a shot at life and liberty. Most of them don’t practice Islam, just like most Australians do not practice Christianity, it’s a moot point. It does not matter whether someone does practice a particular religion just as much as should not matter what the pigment of someone’s skin is. However to the biased and prejudiced it does matter.
Helping refugees is actually lawful, however magistrates are faced with mangled imposts upon their judgments generated from within the chambers of parliament, by political parties withdrawn from moral leadership and mongered by electoralism; a vicious cycle.
The tenuously political, and racist, mantra of “breaking the people smugglers’ business model” has caused unconscionable damage. I was stunned when a GetUP! Campaign against the Malaysian option quoted, “it is understandable that the Minister cannot offer a blanket exemption to any class of asylum seekers, for fear that the people smugglers will exploit it to their advantage.” Of the hundreds of Asylum Seekers I have interviewed each said to me there was no way to find safe passage from persecution and oppression and the prospect of death without the assistance of those demonised as people smugglers.
They are not people smugglers, they are heroes, whether a few make a quid out of this or not. No one is being smuggled to Australia, and rather people are being saved from the prospect of death or from being conscripted into for instance the Taliban. Australia has deported Asylum Seekers back to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka who were soon murdered.
These heroes are taking great risks and paying enormous amounts of money to officials, police and border controls, and various others, for them to turn a blind eye or to assist with the passage of desperate people, of families.
International human smuggling laws defines itself as human trafficking for prostitution and indentured labour, the forced removal of peoples across borders for “gain, slavery or exploitation.” So, why can’t our news media pick up our parliamentarians on this?
I do not question whether a very few have supposedly profiteered in assisting Asylum Seekers however is this a crime? Migration agents get paid for their services. Ali Jenabi did not profiteer.
If we want to buy into the misappropriated terminology and the myth of a business model then let us consider the words of the Director of Refugee and Asylum Law at the University of Michigan, James Hathaway, “Canada and other developed countries created the market on which smugglers depend by erecting migration walls around their territories. The more difficult it is to get across a border to safety on one’s own, the more sensible it is to hire a smuggler to navigate the barriers to entry. Smugglers are thus the critical bridge to get at-risk people to safety. Which one of us, if confronted with a desperate need to flee but facing seemingly impossible barriers, would not seek out a smuggler to assist us?”
However we have to start having a good look at ourselves and what we have bought into – racism of course – when we label people as smugglers for merely saving lives, of families and children we have a real problem of identity and of morality.
Many perceived people smugglers were asylum seekers and refugees and they understand the predicament of their peoples, those persecuted and displaced. Iraqi Ali Jenabi’s brother was killed by Saddam Hussein’s forces. He arrived in Indonesia penniless and to earn passage for his family to Australia, and which included his mother, sisters, brothers and an uncle he worked for perceived people smugglers. His family finally arrived in 3 separate boats.
Ali Jenabi’s humanity continued and he has since helped many others seek passage, including those with no money. He is a hero to the Iraqi communities of Australia however a perceived people smuggler to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He could face ten years in prison.
Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the Migration Act support the right to Asylum and for Asylum Seekers to be assisted. A few years ago 27 legal experts explained to a Senate Estimates Inquiry that indeed there is nothing unlawful in assisting people with safe passage to foreign shores.
By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already fled Germany. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many Jews were unable to find countries willing to take them in.
Many German and Austrian Jews tried to go to the United States however they could not obtain the visas – there were no “queues”. Though news of the violent pogroms of November 1938 was widely reported, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees. In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs to assist the needy.
In 1924 the US Congress had set up immigration quotas limiting the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable. These quotas remained in place even after President Franklin D. Roosevelt, responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to address the refugee problem – the Evian Conference, 1938.
In 2012, miniscule resettlement quotas blight the prospect of humanity and the coalescing of peoples – the concept of civil society is much pummelled by the Commonwealth government and its jurisdictions however it is not the lived experience. Because of the migration walls, people who should have been granted asylum will continue to be deported at higher rates than ever before – even when compared to the Howard/Ruddock years – many of the deportees will be cruelly persecuted and many will be murdered, as has already been the case with some. In protecting migration walls our governments will continue to rely on Kafkaesque principles – building brick by brick these migration walls with mortar that is the blood of those they keep out; who will die in transit, at sea, in detention centres and refugee camps, or languish destitute with no prospect of a helping hand. In an effort to wipe the blood from their hands governments will continue to deny their racism, their disconnection with humanity, and describe those who openly, and with great risk to themselves, assist refugees and displaced peoples in their flight to asylum, as people smugglers – and that they are ‘evil scum’.
Gerry Georgatos
PhD researcher Australian Custodial Systems, Masters Social Justice Advocacy, Masters Human Rights Education, Refugee Advocate
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/07/19/people-smugglers-they-are-not-lawful-and-heroes-instead-we-have-to-change-the-language
So the smugglers only make a few quid now. I thought they were doing it for free according to Bones.
I don’t think $10,000 per head is a exactly free.
You’d have to think that, if these are poor refugees, this would have to represent entire life savings. Or maybe the refugee claimants are very well off, and able to leave the country of their origin, or they are fleeing from, arrive in Indonesia, and still pay for the trip to Australia. Something abut this whole thing just doesn’t add up.
And Australia has a very good entry system for refugees. And a very generous intake.
But, to return to the original post, Kevin Rudd channels Bones’ and wazza’s equivalence arguments to put down a Pastor on the left-wing Q&A show, and relieve himself of the majority of the Evangelical Christian vote.
Sandy Grant, senior minister at St Michael’s Anglican Cathedral in Wollongong, refutes Rudd’s argument.
Last night, on a serious Australian current affairs program, Q&A, our current serving Prime Minister, a self-professed Christian, grossly caricatured the Bible.
A pastor questioned the PM’s change of mind on same-sex marriage, pointing out that Jesus says, “A man shall leave his father and mother and be married”—summarising Matthew 19:4-6—and asked why someone calling himself a Christian does not believe the words of Jesus in the Bible.
The PM replied,
“Well if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.”
This received the most enormous applause of the night, which incidentally seems to indicate both the depth of biblical illiteracy and the hostility to Christian morality.
As justification, the PM went on to refer to Paul’s instructions—delivered in both Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22—for slaves to be obedient to their masters. And he suggested on this basis, “we should have all fought for the Confederacy in the US Civil War”.
I am appalled at how this national leader, publicly claiming “an informed conscience and a Christian conscience”, misrepresented the Holy Book of the faith he confesses, on its teaching on one matter (slavery) to avoid its teaching on another matter (of marriage), in order to justify his abandonment of that biblical teaching.
The Bible’s teaching on slavery is extensive and diverse and was spoken into various cultures: Ancient Near Eastern society, largely agrarian, as well as Graceo-Roman culture, where practices of slavery varied considerably. And some of these versions of slavery were themselves quite different at points from the race-based slavery that blighted North America and other parts of the world, against which the Christian MP, William Wilberforce, and others fought from the late 1700s into the 1800s. However, none of it was part of the original created order.
Nevertheless, it is true that the Bible also honestly records, and sometimes regulates, the practice of slavery. It is naïve in the extreme—just a poor reading strategy—to assume an endorsement of an institution or activity, simply because it is recorded without particular narrative assessment at one point, or because it is regulated—for what might be called harm-minimisation, or an ethic of retrieval—at another point.
Let’s be clear. Even a cursory reading of the Bible would tell you it never says slavery is a “natural condition”. Never. Not once.
Any material regulating the practice of slavery needs to be read alongside the extensive material which shows the Bible ultimately opposes slavery.
One of the paradigmatic episodes of the Old Testament is the Exodus. It involves God’s rescue of his people out of slavery! Slavery is presented as unequivocally unpleasant and cruel. Refer Exodus 2:23-25:
During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them. (NIV84)
Under God’s direction in the Law of Israel, the Exodus became a driving shaper of ethics. For example, Deuteronomy 24:17-18:
Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.
In the New Testament, as in the Old, the slave trade is condemned out of hand with various other grievous sins. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says,
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (NIV11)
How is any of that teaching that slavery is a natural condition?
But more than that, freedom is always a key goal of the Christian gospel. This is ultimately a spiritual freedom from slavery to sin and its consequences. But it has implications for earthly human freedom or enslavement. Yes, spiritual freedom before God—in relationship with Christ, who purchased you by his blood—enables one to accept a lack of temporal, earthly freedom, indeed to work hard for your master.
So here is the full context of the only words of the Bible on slavery the MP referred to. I am using the version in Ephesians 6:5-9:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (NIV84)
Your true master is Christ, a truly good master. And understanding that frees you to work hard for your boss, yes, even if he is your earthly slave master. Even, it is noted elsewhere, if they mistreat you.
But that it not all this passage says about slavery. It counter-culturally warns masters never to mistreat their slaves. It reminds owners that far from having a totally superior status or being a class apart, rather, before God, they are equal to their slaves.
In that connection, we note the much quoted verse, Galatians 3:28:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Your ethnicity and gender, your social, educational and economic status or class, are far less important than the fact that all humans are created in the image of God. And here, far less important to a Christian, than that you are all united, equally, in Christ.
But the New Testament goes further. Paul encourages the emancipation of a runaway slave, Onesimus, in his letter to the wronged-master, Philemon. And in addition, Paul writes these words in 1 Corinthians 7:21-22:
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave.
Slavery is never once taught in Scripture as the natural condition. Rather, if you can gain your freedom, do so.
I am deeply sorry to say it—and all the more in an election week—but our Prime Minister convicted the Bible on a trumped up charge. How sad for someone in high office, publicly professing the Christian faith.
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/09/pm-verbals-the-bible/
Rudd should probably have let this one go through to the keeper, because now, having raised the carbon price as something he’ll now fight for after boasting at the beginning of the campaign he’d buried it, and now allowing the gay marriage issue new found traction, he has wedged himself to appeal to minorities instead of giving himself clear air for the last few days, especially in view of the Syrian situation, which gave him some hope of a come-back.
Three weeks ago Rudd said the carbon tax was a mistake. He courted the gay vote with his ‘equal marriage’ pledge, and took a had line on refugees after having opened the doors n 2007 with his reinstallation of people smuggling activities.
He keeps himself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
From the ever-sharp Bunyip…
The Gospel According to Kevin
On Q&A last night, Kevin Rudd explained his conversion to the gay marriage cause as no violation of scripture, alluding to St Paul’s alleged endorsement of slavery and from there leaping somehow to the conclusion that those who oppose “marriage equality” would have been morally obliged to take up arms for the Confederacy.
What this tells us is that there is nothing this wretched facsimile of a man will not twist or misrepresent to advance his cause, which we knew, and that he has not lately read his Old Testament, especially Deuteronomy 23:15-16:
15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.
16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
As to Saint Paul, who cops quite enough grief already from feminists, Rudd was thinking of the Apostle’s letter to Philemon, which does indeed record the returning of a slave to his master. Yet contrary to Rudd’s assertion, it is also quite clear that Paul, who was in prison at the time, has come to accept and endorse same-sex action. He makes that very clear in verse 7:
For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
All scriptural knee-slappers aside, if Rudd had not been intent on misrepresenting Paul he would have been obliged to explain that, while honouring the law, the Apostle also dropped a very broad hint that manumission would be a fine thing indeed.
But that wouldn’t have been Rudd’s style. Why tell the truth when a lie will do?
http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/the-gospel-according-to-kevin.html
(By the way, for the gay-marriage-promoting non-scriptural lurkers out there, Bunyip was joking about Paul’s endorsement of same sex-action. If you don’t get the joke you probably don’t know scripture that well, which is why you should leave the Bible and what it says alone, rather than attempt to use it to prove something which isn’t there.)
I dont get the joke…..
Probably not…
Maybe wazza’s post was prophetic, as Christian leaders queue up to refute his claims. From the Australian…
RELIGIOUS leaders have sharpened their attacks on Kevin Rudd, citing his hamfisted attempts to argue the biblical case for same-sex marriage in a spirited shellacking of a Christian pastor on Monday night.
Broad views abounded but one of the most prominent Anglicans in the country and Old Testament scholar, the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, said the Prime Minister was “profoundly wrong” and alleged he had actually quoted Aristotle when he suggested that “slavery is a natural condition” was in the Bible.
“I was disappointed by Mr Rudd’s comments last night in the same way that I was disappointed by the position he announced in May despite, as he said, much reflection,” Dr Davies told The Australian.
“Unfortunately in my view, he has not been reflecting on the teaching of scripture. He misquoted the Bible and attributed to the Bible something that Aristotle said.”
Didn’t really find it funny…disturbing and more scatological than eschatological, but not funny at all.
Sandy is wrong.
The prime minister is right
Steve is wrong
Wazza, Bones, and I are right.
Q is a master weapon maker and a good man to have on your team when planning a spy operation.
Christian leader que up? Two of them, a que? Probably illegal economic migrants just pretending to be Christian leaders in order to fit in
Hi Steve. I hope Rudd doesn’t drop the soap for this passage,
30 And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
BTW, I don’t think that Steve was trying to approve the joke.
I think that he was offering an explanation so people would not take the scripture out of context.
Kudos to Steve for trying to make fun of the bible but he’s no dave allen.
Better stick to his day job of turning back the boats.
The Bible defines “natural” sexual relationships in Genesis 2:18–25. Anything outside the norm is abnormal. Jesus confirms the creation model in Matthew 19:4–6, and by definition condemns any other type of sexual relationship: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ‘So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 13:1-25
Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” …
1 Kings 14:24
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.
But i am sure that many have already read this.
If after reading this 1000 times you still can’t conform,try another 1000.
Ok eyes. I’ll give up my thing for male cult prostitutes.
Who’s chamber did he weep in? My goodness what a big chamber you have…all the better to accept your phallus my dear!
So the scripture wasn’t clear on its own? It had to be explained? Oh…so maybe things I think say one thing might actually mean another? Wow, this is really getting to me
I really like male cult prostitutes…they’re so cute when they’re angry!
Take a moment to have a look at what the Australian Christians party have put together
http://www.fightforfaith.org/
Rudd made his point farly clumsily, not entirely accurately and a bit desperately.
But its basically valid.
If you take the words at their face value, it does appear that the Bible approves of, or at least tolerates slavery. This argument has of course been used many times in history where it suited the prevailing orthodoxy.
No reasonable Christian would make that argument now from reading the scripture at face value. They would, as Matthias media have done, consider the wider context of Scripture, the social context and purpose of writer … etc.
Rudd is not making an argument that the scripture is pro-slavery, he is making an argument that we should interpret scripture carefully on homosexuality – just as we now do on slavery or divorce. He was responding to a questioner who said “I just believe in what the Bible says and I’m just curious for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian, why don’t you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?”
Of course the words of Jesus in the Bible that he is referring to (Matt 19) were not intended to be a condemenation of homosexuality, but of divorce – as I have repeatedly pointed out before.
But this is of no concern to a Christian when it appears to confirm his/her own beliefs. He then says “I just believe the Bible, why dont you if you call yourself a Christian?” It is only when the words of Jesus don’t confirm your own beliefs that you look at social context, the original Greek or Hebrew etc.
I agree it was somewhat of a confronting question, but Rudd has targeted the so-called Christian vote, which has always been skeptical of his sincerity, and with a fair amount of justification. Heis a populist who flip fops from one preference to another like Toad of Toad Hall, only with politics.
Rudd was unnecessarily harsh in his argument with the pastor, which did him no favours.
But his exegesis was poor. He quoted Aristotle as if it was a Biblical principle, saying slavery was a natural condition, which is preposterous, unles his reference was to sin, but I do not think it crossed his mind. The Bible seeks to set all men free. Their greatest slavery is to sin. Jesus came to release them. Human bondage by masters over slaves is not a natural condition for any man.
Rudd skirted the issue before him, which was marriage. The divorce straw man is another distraction form the fact that he describes marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no exception to this. He may not have condemned homosexuality in this passage, but he certainly didn’t confirm it either, or he would have qualified marriage as being between two people of any gender. He does not. He specifies a man and a woman.
That is all we need to know as Christians.
The world sees it differently of course, but the question was on Christian values and Ridd’s claim to their authenticity in his life.
Only a few months ago Rudd held the same view as the pastor, by the way.
Take a moment to have a look at what the Australian Christians party have put together
According to Steve the Australian Christian’s Party is the LNP.
But it seems to be a question of whether the ACD, ACP or Danny Nalliah’s Rise Up Australia Party is more nutty.
Should just make a coalition of the “We hate anal sex” party.
“Rudd is not making an argument that the scripture is pro-slavery, he is making an argument that we should interpret scripture carefully on homosexuality”
Rudd is clearly and desperately trying his darndest to make homosexuality an acceptable practice in the Christian community.
You have probably heard some say,’What’s wrong with being Gay’, or, ‘it’s OK to be Gay’, But let me ask anyone this Question, “What is RIGHT with being Gay” ?
Could anyone possibly give me any suitable answer ?
What good does it do to practice Homosexuality ?
How has Homosexuality benefited humanity ?
But his exegesis was poor…
As opposed to Tony’s.
Maybe you could quiz Tony on the Marian dogma you are so infatuated with.
That’s right Abbott won’t take unscripted questions.
Hi Joe Takacs,
Thanks for the video link @ http://www.fightforfaith.org/
Hope Rudd gives it a watch.
Seems Murdoch didn’t like this ad much so it’s been pulled from all commercial networks.
That’s free speech and Steve’s Big Brother world for ya.
How has Homosexuality benefited humanity?
How has right wing Christianity benefited humanity?
You might need some thinking music for that one.
“The PM replied,…..the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.”
Is he stupid or just have no integrity?
Then again the signposts wackos probably leapt to their feets with tears in their eyes at that remark. Someone has joined then in their grand crusade to misrepresent the bible.
This same man said homosexuality is “normal and natural”.
I wonder if that sounds as weird in Chinese as it does in English.
Could he be thinking in Chinese and translating backwards?
Nah …. He’s just a politician.
And he honestly thought he fooled people with the “changed my opinion before becoming PM spiel???
He must think Aussies are idiots!
Then again ….
Bones (lying through his teeth again),
According to Steve the Australian Christian’s Party is the LNP.
I think I’m on record as saying voting for a minor party is pointless, like casting your seed on the concrete.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for a double dissolution.
Q. What’s the difference between Rudd political fib and a Bones’ fabricated argument?
A. Rudd will be politically extinct after Saturday.
Dr John R Diggs is the guy who has provided Eyes and the Australian Christian Party’s antigay sex video.
This guy has form in distorting studies and using obsolete studies to push his antigay agenda. It’s rampant among antigay Christian websites but is, unsurprisingly, not backed up by an peer review literature.
The Medical Dangers of Homosexuality REFUTED..
There are a number of problems with the sources and statistics that Dr. Diggs uses for this paper (which is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, as is expected of any credible scientific report).
1) Dr. Diggs makes the centerpiece of his article four apparent facts: 1) gays are more promiscuous than straights, 2) gays have more STD’s than straights, 3) the human body was not physically designed for gay anal sex, and 4) gays have a higher rate of psychiatric disorders than straights.
I’d like to address points 1 and 3 first, since these are simply not supported in the medical literature. First, no accepted study has supported his claim that gays are more promiscuous than straights. Urban legend strongly suggests that gays have many more sexual partners than heterosexuals. However, matched samples between heterosexuals and homosexuals provide evidence that there is no difference in the rates of sexuality between the two groups.
Dr. Diggs’ cites the Bell and Weinberg study to show that gays are radically more promiscuous then straights. However, this interpretation of the Bell and Weinberg study has been rejected by the scientific community because of numerous problems found in the study (primarily, they did not use a random sample, they used a faulty control group, they did not disclose parts of their data, and their definitions were too broad).
Second, Dr. Diggs claims that gay sex is contrary to the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Robert Gagnon makes a similar argument in his recent anti-gay book. However, this also is not supported by the scientific community. The studies that have been done show that there is no pathology associated with the musculature or tissue associated with anal sex. Further, the anatomy of the region is actually complementary to this type of sexuality, contrary to what Dr. Diggs proposes. If it weren’t then damage would occur, which it doesn’t. Further, the ano-rectal area of men is innervated with the same nerve that innervates the penis (the pudendal nerve) and stimulation of this region (specifically of the prostate) can, by itself, produce orgasm in the male.
Dr. Diggs brings up the issue that semen has properties that show anti-immune system properties, and that this should be evidence enough that gays should not engage in anal sex. However, what he doesn’t make clear is why this biological fact does not also preclude vaginal sex. If the anti-immune system properties were significant, then would it not cross gender lines? He tries to make the connection between the “fragility of the anus and rectum” to support this conclusion, however the scientific literature does not support the assumption of the fragility of this region, since it does not take into account the equal fragility and susceptibility to disease of the lining of the uterus.
Diggs makes the claim that gays have a higher rate of STD’s than straights, and that, in and of itself, should be evidence that homosexuality is a sin. However, as I addressed in a post above, this medical fact is not so much an indictment of gays, but of the patriarchal racist culture of western cultures which provide the best medical care to white straight males. To reiterate my argument from above, while African Americans have significantly higher rates of STD’s than whites or gays, I doubt that Diggs would want to use this fact as a tool to initiate the eradication of African Americans. Further, Diggs tries to make the claim that since aids has such a higher rate of infection among gays than straights in the us, he fails to put it into the worldwide epidemiological context, where possibly 80-90% of the cases of aids is transmitted by heterosexuals. Thus the use of this argument seems to fall back onto itself given the larger context of STD epidemiology.
Finally Diggs tries to show that gays have a higher incidence of psychiatric disease than straights, and to use that as evidence that homosexuality is a sin. However, such is simply not the case. While studies are conflicting, more studies than not show little difference in the rates of psychological pathology between gays and straights. Below is a list of over 30 studies from the past 40 years, all in peer-reviewed journals, disputing Diggs’ conclusion.
The one study that Diggs uses to support his claim is a very well-done study from the Netherlands. What the study claims is that 56% of gays have mental disease, whereas only 42% of straights have mental disease. While I do not dispute the methodology of the findings, the issue is replicability–why do so few other studies find similar results while the vast majority of studies on this topic find no difference in results? Further, I question the meaning of the study in terms of the use that Diggs tries to show. If homosexuals are mentally disturbed, as Diggs wants us to believe, then wouldn’t there be a 100% concordance rate with gays and mental pathology. What about the other 44% that show no evidence of mental pathology according to this study? Is a 14% increase, if that statistic is even valid (which no other study supports), how does that make Diggs’ case for him?
Diggs tries to make the association that since the Netherlands is “considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other western countries”, that this would counter the claim that gays experience more mental disease because of cultural oppression and abuse. Diggs even points to the fact that the Netherlands allows gay marriage to bring home his point. However, what Diggs fails to mention is that the study was conducted well before the legalization of gay marriage. Further, he does not explain the history of the gay-rights movement in the Netherlands and the continuing generalized anti-gay sentiment by many groups in the Netherlands. The study itself does not provide age differentiated statistics to show us if only the older gays have a higher rate of disease and if the younger gays, who have grown up in a more tolerant atmosphere, have lower incidence of mental disease.
Another point that Diggs brings up is the earlier age of death among gay people. Again, this is a distortion of the medical literature and the accepted interpretation of the data. The study to which Diggs points is a study that, as a group, gay people live 20 years younger than straight people. This study is based on a study of people who have died of age. It compares the assumed prevalence of homosexuality (3%) with the death rate of straight people. However, the critical flaw in this study is that it only looks at people who die from age and draws the age projections from that. Granted, if you have AIDS, then your life span is dramatically shortened, and youalso have a higher chance of having aids in the us if you are gay. But if you look at the life-span of gays and straights who do not have aids, then you will find no difference in life-spans, just as you will not find any difference in life-spans between gays and straights who do have aids. If this study were to be done in Africa, then one would find the reverse pattern–you are in grave danger of dying from aids if you are straight.
One major medical mistake this physician made in his article regards the use of a non-existent disease to condemn gays. He brings up the disease known as “gay bowel syndrome” to show that homosexuality is sin. However, the history of this disease is actually used in epidemiological literature as evidence of how cultural bias creeps into the medical literature. It is used to help doctors to view their patients objectively and not jump to conclusions. GBS is actually not a disorder at all, but a conglomeration of symptoms that doctors “assumed” were related to homosexuality. Subsequent studies (the article Diggs cites is from the 70′s) have shown that GBS does not exist.
One of the most common problems among writers to attempt to make the case that Diggs does in this article, is that they provide statistics on gay pathology, but do not provide mirror studies of straights. Diggs uses a similar technique here. For example, he makes the claim that 37% of men have practiced some form of sadism. He cites an ethnographic work by jay and young as support for his claim. However, the data they provide is not from a scientific study, but from an informal survey. Further, a study done on this topic from the journal of personality and social psychology indicates that 33% of women and 50% of men have sexually sadistic fantasies.
This pattern of providing statistics on gay people that seem shocking are frequently not put into the larger cultural context, that shows the statistics are not really that shocking when one compares them to the sexual behavior of the general population. Take public displays of sex and sexuality. The alleged “pro-family” groups harangue endlessly on how pathological gays are for our obsession about sex (which doesn’t exist if one looks at the peer-reviewed, replicated studies on this topic). However, I cannot walk down a grocery store aisle, watch a movie, turn on daytime and evening television, or listen to the radio without seeing pictures of barely dressed women, seeing headlines about “how to drive your man wild”, or see shows that depict wonton adultery and explicit displays of sex. Considering how small the gay population is in the us, and how rampant the “problem” of heterosexuality, it seems that if the pro-family groups were truly interested in protecting the family, they would be spending their money and time proportionately–97% being focused on getting your own people under control and advocating for repeals of the divorce laws, since 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce and over 1/3 of the “intact marriages” (the term used by Diggs) have partners engaged in adultery.
http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?page_id=62
So now Bones is not only supporting the right of homosexuals to marry, which in itself is unbiblical, but actively promoting homosexual sex.
It is a fact, however, that to be in a marriage which desires children requires a third party, which means marriage, in a gay sense, cannot be between two people, but at least three. Hence the need for a surrogate mother in the case of the homosexual couple who wanted to sue the CoE to force them to marry them. They have two children, but required a third person to bring their children into the world. It is the same with rock star Elton John and his partner, who also have two children, but not by each other.
When you tell your children the birds and the bees, Bones, will you include the homosexual lifestyle as an option, or have you already been throug this as a parent?
By the way, the argument is about marriage from a Christian standpoint, not whether the gay lifestyle is acceptable or natural. It can’t be natural unless it is about sexual gratification alone. If it is about procreation it is clearly unnatural.
Actually I was refuting and exposing lies.
Which you would love to be true to justify your hatred of gays.
No, Bones, you were actively promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle. You always have. Or are you saying it isn’t an acceptable lifestyle? What’s it to be? Will you promote it to your children as acceptable?
You have consistently misrepresented what I have said. That is also called lying.
I don’t hate anyone. You try my patience, but I couldn’t say I hate you. If I hated gays I wouldn’t present the gospel. Hatred isn’t synonymous with telling the truth, it just feels bad for those being confronted with their sin, but it isn’t hate.
On the basis of your premise, you, however, must hate Christians.
Do you think you can catch homosexuality?
It’s no more acceptable than heterosexuality.
Should I tell my kids that gays are evil?
Or if the play with their penises they’ll go to hell?
You are decidedly two faced.
If you love gays why do you believe lies?
Why do you unquestioningly accept as truth without any evidence to suggest its based on current research?
It can only be to justify your own bigotry.
But that’s what your gospel and god is, isn’t it?
God hates you unless you stop being gay.
So now Bones is not only supporting the right of homosexuals to marry, which in itself is unbiblical, but actively promoting homosexual sex.
Lying is unbiblcal. Which is what the author of the above video is doing.
And Christians have fallen for it.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Who is the author of lies again?
Why do Christians want to believe lies?
Btw it’s apparently biblical to believe lies to justify your own bigotry.
And its ok if you can show people you despise as being bad.
That’s called propaganda.
Who believes anything you put up here? I was merely making the comment that, by your continual attack on anyone who opposes homosexuality you promote it as a lifestyle.
I didn’t read much of the last quote you put up, because it became apparent to me, after reading a couple of paragraphs, that, regardless of whether it had any scientific or spiritual merits, you were hammering away in defence of the homosexual lifestyle.
The sheer number of articles you have produced on here defending the lifestyle shows your abject appreciation of it as a virtuous and god-given means of sexual gratification, to the degree that you support it as a marriage option.
Greg has already declared homosexual sex to be god-given, and now you are joining the club in saying that God actually ordained that men should have sexual intercourse with men and women (somehow) with women.
My only conclusion is that, when and if you ever discuss this with your own offspring you will delight n explaining to them what takes place in coitus and the expected results.
I don’t read much of what you write cause its usually complete crap.
You’re a complete hypocrite.
The ones that Jesus warned about.
You have nothing to say to me about how I will raise my kids.
They sure won’t end up as bigoted and ignorant pricks like you.
As soon as you are cornered by your own arguments in defence of homosexual marriage you go for the verbal jugular.
How is it hypocritical to follow Biblical instructions regarding marriage, intercourse or relationships? It isn’t. It can never be. God has not changed his mind about marriage, or what it represents for the Christian. It’s the mystery of Christ and the Church and you want to marry it to sodomy.
You can foam all you want, curse and swear into the air in your vain attempt at putting down the Word. It will never change a single thing. It only shows that you are an impatient, angry and malicious opposer of all God has said about marriage.
The ignorance is of God’s will. The bigotry is towards believers. It has gathered momentum and will until Jesus comes. Sadly you have made yourself a part of it.
If you at least believed the Scripture you selectively employ in an attempt to flesh out some of your arguments you might have something to say or carry some credibility. As it is your denial of the Bible ranks you with unbelievers, with whom believers should not be yoked.
Mr Rudd is in the same class, evidently. He joined one club at the last election for convenience and now joins another for this election. He doesn’t care a fig if the Christians are polarised by his followers. His divisive nature thrives on headlines. By all accounts he’s a curser, too.
But you have shunned even the grossly incompetent Rudd to hook up with something even worse.
I can’t believe I’ve been discussing politics with three Greens, all who purport to be Christian yet deny Scripture. Barking up the wrong tree won’t do a thing but waste the paper you vote on.
Eyes video is not unlike something you would see in nazi germany. It’s clearly a way to spread hatred among the christian right.
Its very similar to anti catholic videos that steve posted.
To believe lies then turn and say you love those people is akin to a nazi saying they love jews.
I haven’t watched Eyes’ video, but again you lie. What ‘anti-catholic videos’? I put up some posts which pointed out errors in their doctrine, using their own vatican files and theology from their catechism. I also don’t hate Catholics. If I did I’d leave the doctrine which condemns them alone. I put up a Q&A issue which referenced Pell Vs Dawkins. That’s it.
Eyes video is not unlike something you would see in nazi germany. It’s clearly a way to spread hatred among the christian right.
For goodness sake, Bones, we’re talking about an Australian election where the parties, apart from the marxist inspired Greens are predominantly centrist, not some far right Nazi organisation. You really are the pits. You must be so totally down on yourself or life in general to become such a pathetic extremist in your own right.
I can’t for the life of me think why someone who relies on fabrication of evidence so much and ultra-extreme accusations of moderate people in a peaceful, democratic nation can even consider himself Christian.
Maybe you need to spend some time in a real dictatorship or communist nation for a few months to get your bearings on where you actually are. Why not tae a package tour to North Korea for a couple of weeks. That should do it.
You and the Greens belong to each other.
But, to the Greens. it seems they have the same morality as Bones, at least.
SCANDAL-PLAGUED independent MP Craig Thomson has won a vote of confidence from the Greens, who have put him second on their how-to-vote card and described him as “an excellent local member”.
So, Bones, now that you’ve spat a few dummies, are you promoting the homosexual lifestyle?
Are you saying it is Biblically sound to engage in homosexual sex?
Can you show us where the Bible states that a man can marry a man and God will approve?
I can’t. It’s not there.
But maybe you have Scripture for all the Christians who rely on it for their daily Bread which actually states that a man can marry a man, or even that a man can have sex with a man, and God endorses it, and, in the case of marriage, not only endorses it but ordains it as undefiled.
I ca only find that the wedding bed between a husband and his wife is either ordained or considered undefiled.
Perhaps you have a direct Word from God that no one else does.
The measure of a man. Tony Abbott forgives the woman who accused him of being a misogynist.
When they happened upon each other at the airport lounge, Mr Abbott said to Ms Gillard, “You’ve been through a pretty tough time” and “she agreed that yes, it had been a pretty tough time but that was the kind of thing that tended to happen in the rough and tough business we’re in”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/tony-abbott-and-julia-gillard-building-bridges-towards-friendship/story-fnho52jj-1226710875392
“I can’t believe I’ve been discussing politics with three Greens”
Actually Steve, that’s the least of my worries. I thought signposts started out as a place where some committed Christians discussed their experiences in churches or something.
But that was naive. It became attacks on Hillsong and C3. Then it has become basically a place for attack on just about all evangelical Christianity.
But now?
Yesterday I came here and Bones seems to be citing studies to show us how healthy, natural and orgasmic male anal sex is.
So, this place is not only discouraging, but all kinds of sin are promoted and what’s written is starting to make me physically ill.
Bones cites far left looney websites, and at one time a blantanty anti-semitic website, and now is preaching the joys of male anal sex while using as much foul language as he likes….and also boasts that he has some educational position and can enlighten young minds.
This is not a Christian site.
Look Bones, just go away to an island with greg and you can be as natural with him as you like. But leave the young minds behind.
And now the Australian’s Adam Ch’ng backs up wazza’s prophetic post.
Judas Kiss will cost PM
At 7.30pm that Monday, more than 35,000 Christians gathered across 339 churches in every state and territory of Australia to watch Rudd and Tony Abbott address the Christian constituency.
…many of us sympathised with Rudd’s apparently genuine admission that: “Many in the Christian churches may be disappointed with some of the decisions that I have taken as Prime Minister or as a person. I have also undertaken those decisions in good and prayerful conscience, even though people in equal prayerful conscience may disagree with some of those conclusions.”
If the night had ended there, many of us would have been disappointed but at least sympathetic towards Rudd’s clumsy attempt to navigate through a complex moral minefield…
Not more than three hours later, Rudd publicly crucified a mainstream Christian pastor for questioning the PM’s backflip on marriage policy.
Instead of the “gentle Kevin meek and mild” we’d seen earlier that night, Rudd now not only failed to directly answer the question but mercilessly lambasted the pastor…
In retrospect, the Prime Minister’s apparently gracious words of 7.30pm were akin to Judas’s kiss before his 10.30pm betrayal.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/judas-kiss-will-cost-pm/story-e6frgd0x-1226710891957
The good thing is that there is compulsory voting in Australia.
Basically, Rudd’s answer was brilliant. The left-wing audience applauded, and the gay marriage crowd will share it and retweet it and go bananas “liking” it. That’s the way social media works, and Rudd answered well. (Totally false, and illogical – but that doesn’t matter. NEver before in history has form won over substance like it does now”.
For every Christian who stands up for the Pastor – he came across badly.
The way that clip was shown – Rudd is in a suit and red tie, talking about love, and quoting the bible and the pastor dressed badly looked like he was just beaten.
So, the gay marriage brigade will push this as hard as they can and try to turn this into a “if you vote for Abbot you hate gays and probably like slavery” deal.
Much like the media has done in the US with racism, and then gay marriage.
So, basically Rudd has done an Obama with the gay issue – except that Obama was probably always for gay marriage, while Rudd thought that he could write the essay, challenge for leadership and then be the great gay hope.
Fortunately for Australia, everyone has to vote so we’ll see. I’m not really for compulsory voting – but in this case it might work to negate the manipulation of Bones “young minds”.
Rudd and Bones are similar in the way the misrepresent scripture and Christians. But Rudd is a little smarter because he holds off on the male anal sex spiel.
btw, no, Rudd’s answer wasn’t really brilliant in terms of truth. But in this day and age, and with Tv, youtube, and social media, it was brilliant.
Seriously, Christians have to lift their game if they want to communicate outside of church.
(but Prater of course was at a distinct disadvantage and I give him kudos for being there and doing what he does.)
That article about the two faces of Rudd was interesting though.
And not surprising.
An interesting article for someone to write about would be on the use of social media and the spread of evil.
The push for gay marriage could only have taken place in this time of twitter, internet articles, youtube etc.
And Christians SERIOUSLY underestimate the power and influence of commenting on the various platforms.
Bone’s young minds (the type so young they might be impressed with his newfound zeal for promoting male anal sex), can be very easily influenced by seeing the comments in favor of
one side of the argument on websites. iow – they go with what is popular – as most people do.
That’s why it’s good for you Steve to keep posting here. Otherwise every article will be about gay marriage, how bad the Jews are and who knows what sex practise Bones will be researching next ….
Come on signposts, let’s have more repentance and prayer and less copy and pastes about how healthy male anal sex is. Enough is enough!
Keep that stuff to yourself Bones, or just in private emails with Greg.
Well Aussie Christians. Rudd wants gay marriage. The coalitiion is talking about fliters for the internet.
Seems pretty obvious who you’d vote for.
And on the topic of small Christian parties – I’d rather see Christians get involved in a major party than to have a small separate Christian party.
Just have to make sure Rudd doesn’t get in.
btw go watch him swear his head off in a youtube clip when he couldn’t get his Chinese speech right. It was like a day on signposts….lol
and this gem..
an article from news.com.au
“Last night the internet was clogged with praise for a supercilious new website called “Don’t be a f**king idiot this Saturday”.
The profanity-filled site is a tirade against the supposed stupidity of Coalition voters. It says anyone who votes for an Abbott government on Saturday is “a credulous ignorant fool”, “a selfish d**k” and “a stupid f**king mouth-breathing idiot”.”
Man, news sites are becoming more like signposts all the time.
This is the level of debate in Australia now?
And the way young minds are manipulated.
Christians need to take back the internet.
Politics, in an election, is the art of manipulation.
There is no party which represents God’s view, even if they are run as Christian parties. Fred Nile doesn’t represent my view, nor does Danny Naliah. They represent their own view of politics from their own theological standpoint. I don’t see that as helpful. It will accrue a handful of supporters, but it takes more than this to sway a nation.
On the other hand it is God who chooses who governs. We get what we deserve, whether to congratulate or to correct.
So Christians’ best opportunity is in lobbying major parties towards policies which reflect the Christian perspective. That was the original aim of ACL, and I supported it, but it became parochial and narrow in its perspective, politically, and focused on issues which were nothing to do with touching the nation, but rather finding out which candidates were closest to their values.
This leaves the very best way to influence any organisation – by being involved in it, by joining it as a worker, or as a lobbyist, better still, as an advisor.
It is a fact of life that only the major parties will set the decision making processes in motion. Minor parties have their day in the sun, but tend to come and go.
Christians need to be involved at the very heart of decision making. Elections are generally fought on very narrow lines and opposing policies are usually different presentations of the same set of values. Politics is far more centrist these days.
Julia Gillard’s Labour tried to take us to the left, along with the Greens, but it was a shocking failure which should never be repeated. Rudd has come back into the centre, but he is so incompetent he should never be given the reigns again.
But we need Christian voices everywhere in all (sensible) parties. That way the election matters less than the effectiveness of the back room boys and girls.
Here’s more from Kevin Rudd, answering questions yesterday:
Just a couple of observations:
He says “I know a bit about my New Testament” but then proceeds to trot out the usual stereotypes without giving a fair and balanced explanation of what are fully acknowledged to be difficult texts to set out.
He uses a old tired “cloth of two types” style of argument. For someone who “knows their New Testament” this shows a brazen disregard for detailed and cogent responses to these dilemmas that are found in the New Testament itself! (e.g. Matt. 5:17-20; Acts 15:1-21; Hebrews 10:1 etc.) What Rudd actually demonstrates is that he doesn’t really know his New Testament at all.
More importantly still we should note the increasing contempt with which he speaks about the Bible. This is not simply Rudd saying that certain sections of the Bible ought to be discarded, this is Rudd communicating in tone and manner (whether he likes it or not) that the Bible itself is ridiculous and that those who hold to a consistent view of the Bible are ridiculous.
This contempt is always the end result. Ultimately since opponents are not able to reject the actual argument in the Bible they must reject the Bible itself.
This contemptuous rejection of the Bible and Christians is done by someone who calls themselves a Christian.
This contemptuous rejection of the Bible and Christians is done by the head of government.
And that last one, my friends, is why this is so important and so dangerous. This isn’t really about sexual ethics at all – it’s far more important than that. The most powerful man in the country, our leader, just declared open season on ridiculing Christians and the Bible. I hope not, but I suspect we may very well be entering a new season.
I’m loathe to tell others how to vote. I have deliberately avoided it up till now since I am a great believer that Christians are free to decide on many and various issues and that there is enough latitude in the Scriptures on a whole raft (but perhaps not asylum-seeker-boat) of issues so as to preclude one single authoritative “Christian” way to vote. As Christians we’re urged to pray for our leaders no matter who they are and I want to encourage us all to continue to pray for Prime Minister Rudd and whoever will be our Prime Minister from Saturday onwards, whether Rudd or Abbot.
However, we understand that one of our desires in praying for our leaders is as set out in the New Testament:
1Tim. 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
I’m no fan of sensationalism, but I think it’s clear that Rudd’s comments are not conducive to Christians who trust God’s word being able to live more peaceful and quiet lives. Quite the opposite. As I said, Rudd has publicly called open season upon us from his position as Prime Minister. And I think that’s worth considering on Saturday when we go to the polls.
http://davidould.net/?p=5925
Interesting that the video Eyes put up starts off with 3 arseholes staring at me.
That’s quite ironic really. Matches the last 3 posters.
So, Bones, now that you’ve spat a few dummies, are you promoting the homosexual lifestyle?
Yep. Sure am. And you’ve all bent over and let Abbott and Murdoch have you up the arse.
Did you enjoy it?
What ‘anti-catholic videos’?
I give you Exhibit A.
https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/is-roman-catholic-doctrine-biblical-the-immaculate-conception/#comment-31102
I rest my case your honour. Steve loves Catholics.
Like he loves gays, the Left, liberals, Muslims, Rudd, asylum seekers…
There goes Bones….more anal sex talk.
Listen, you may as well just come out.
It sure would explain a lot.
Q, I don’t think Bones has to come out officially. He has said enough to convince everyone already.
But here’s the rub; Bones is unable to distinguish between disagreement with a perspective or opinion and hatred. He is unable to tell the difference between assent and dissent without accusing the dissenter of malice.
This man, a schoolteacher, no less, is totally incapable of holding a conversation with grown ups without defaulting to abuse and foul language, or appealing to Godwin’s law, or disgusting insults comparing people to the less elegant parts of the human anatomy.
If we say Catholic dogma is unscriptural, he rants and rages and accuses us of hating Catholics.
If we say homosexual sex is not godly according to Scripture he flies off the handle with. Irrational aggression accusing us of hating people because they identify as homosexual.
If we say we disagree with Green or Labour policy, he jumps up and down in a fit of anger and accuses us of hating people who vote for these parties.
He can’t get it into his psyche that we are actually saying we disagree with their theology or politics or lifestyle. Nowhere has anyone said they hate them. Hate is a strong word. It is a wrong word to use to describe what is ineffect a different point of view.
It is entirely possible to love a person and disagree with their religious views, politics or sexuality.
It is entirely possible to love a person and be completely the opposite in most aspects of your outlook on life, preferences and even daily routines, habits, or personality.
For goodness sake, we were all sinners who rejected Christ before He saved us. He didn’t
Love us any less because we were different to Him or rejected Him or crucified Him. He loved us anyway, and that is the Christian way. Jesus never agreed with a whole group of people but He maintained His love for them regardless.
Bones’ argument is childish and malicious in many ways, and he is abusive in a nasty and extreme way, but why would that stop anyone loving him? What is love if it is not unconditional.
But it is people we love, not what they do. The fear of The Lord is to hate sin, not people.
When Bones gets this we can have an adult Christian conversation. Until then we are forced to love him anyway.
This man, an apparent pastor no less, is unable to accept truth when it doesn’t fit with his preconceived bias. He will in fact attack you for it.
This man will attack you for showing that a piece of filth disguised as a medical expose of the dangers of homosexuality is a complete sham. Though he didn’t watch it.
He can’t get it into his psyche that he could be wrong especially when it comes in the way of his pet hates or even if it’s his understanding of the Bible.
His arguments are childish and malicious.in many ways in that he equates defending gays from religious bigotry with the promotion of gay sex.
So in essence if you stopped a gay getting bashed in the street Steve would argue that you are defending gay sex. Or if you defended a Muslim from abject lies from the Christian Right, you are defending terrorists. Or if you told someone that a video painting Catholics as pagan was clearly wrong, you are a Catholic lover. Or if you defend the right of asylum seekers to seek refuge in our land then you are helping the evil people smugglers.
It is people we love. Whether they’re in our image or not. Whether they like gay sex or not. Whether they pray to Mohammad or Buddha or the Blessed Virgin. We don’t need to listen to lies to demonise people because it tickles our ears. We don’t need to fawn to political parties because they tickle our sense of bigotry. But even those we love yet we try to educate them and know that they are trapped in a narrow cultic mindset built on religious doctrine and propaganda. A dangerous mix which has been rampant over the past century. A victim of the spirit of the age. The ones who Jesus says “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”
When Steve gets this we can have an adult Christian conversation. Until then we are forced to love him anyway.
This is from the author of Steve’s antiCatholic video
okcSDRmedia:
A brief video about the Roman Catholic churches lust for blood, as well as its hatred for God and His people.
This is not a holy church, but the church of satan.
it means that hinduism which is a pagan religion uses same symbols with pagan rome.. both are pagans, both govern by same leader, satan.
That is because these churches mother is the roman catholic church they keep her doctrines as we were told would happen in Revelation.And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. Rev 17:5 Catholic religion has never been christianitys “official” religion. It is a counterfet set up by satan to destroy christianity from within as well as make a whole lot of atheist.
Suppose he loves Catholics too.
Well imitation is a form of complement, so I’ll take it you’ve run out of your own ideas and are willing to continue in parrot form and argue as a contrarian parody.
You must also have been saving the Catholic video detour for such a moment, so I’ll take it you’re throwing out the last of your dirty ballast in an attempt to save the balloon from crashing.
Early days, and we can’t count our chickens, but it’s looking like a Liberal/National win at the moment, so you’d better get used to good government for the next three years. Like you, the ABC is in shock.
Is Tania Plibersek a relative?
The unbiased ABC…
Red Kerry to Anthony Green on hearing that Wayne Swan is slightly ahead in early showings, “Any more good news?”
Labour will miss Steven Smith. A decent man.
And Robert McClelland, who was a good Attorney General until Julia Gillard dumped him for the hapless Nicola Roxon. A sad loss to politics – Robert, I mean.
Well imitation is a form of complement…
Well it’s not like you can deny anything, can you when your comments are littered all over this forum.
I mean you can’t twist and worm your way out of this.
On the contrary, Bones, I can safely deny most of what you write about me. That’s the point.
As I have reminded everyone countless times, you have imaginary opponents you argue against who bear no resemblance to anyone here.
What you don’t seem to understand is that there are a number of alternative arguments to your own, and the people giving them do not hate the people you champion just because they disagree with your arguments.
You are an extremist in your own right in the way you rail against people for having another point of view.
That would be OK except you continually revise what others actually say to suit your own argument, especially when you have been clearly demonstrated to be wrong.
How does it feel to have wasted your vote on the Greens?
There’s nothing imaginary.
You attack others who stand for truth because it doesn’t fit with your vile prejudice.
Btw I didn’t vote Green but I wasn’t going to tell you that.
I wanted to see how much of an arse you are.
I put LNP last. I know what they want to do with education.
It’s completely imaginary, Bones, which is why Q asked, with genuine concern, if you had stopped taking the medication.
So what if you didn’t vote for who said you were at the beginning of he thread. Glad to have talked you out of it.
But Palmer? What makes the twerker a better option? Sheesh!
Bones, at the beginning of this thread…
I’ll vote for the Greens.
https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/kevin-rudd-worse-than-judas/#comment-48350
Yeah, right Bones. You fooled everyone!
And you don’t tell porkies at all, do you!
One for Bones…
I can safely deny most of what you write about me.
His arguments are childish and malicious.in many ways in that he equates defending gays from religious bigotry with the promotion of gay sex.
So in essence if you stopped a gay getting bashed in the street Steve would argue that you are defending gay sex. Or if you defended a Muslim from abject lies from the Christian Right, you are defending terrorists. Or if you told someone that a video painting Catholics as pagan was clearly wrong, you are a Catholic lover. Or if you defend the right of asylum seekers to seek refuge in our land then you are helping the evil people smugglers.
Go for it!!
Our new PM
Foreign affairs should be interesting with his goodies and baddies labels.
Will be just like Steve.
Bones (and I think he actually believes what he is saying),
His arguments are childish and malicious.in many ways in that he equates defending gays from religious bigotry with the promotion of gay sex.
Can anyone actually tell me what the dickens this even means? Is it something the Bletchley code breakers need to decipher?
I think it has something to do with the way Christians, genuine Christians, apply the Biblical understanding of marriage being between a man and woman, and defend marriage from the traditional standpoint, but who can tell?
Of course, men who have sex with men who want to be married to one another will be upset with this, but it doesn’t change Biblical truth.
In fact, it is you who have accused those who defend Biblical values on marriage of hating gays because we oppose gay marriage. It is you who have made false accusations.
Now, unrepentant, you are, as usual, making up stories about people rather than take responsibility for your own charges, which have been refuted countless times.
But, look, in UK gays can be married legally, so what’s the problem? There isn’t one. In Australia they can have a civil ceremony. They have equal rights. socially and financially.
The UK Church of England is still permitted to uphold its traditional values on marriage. On he other hand, men can marry men, but not necessarily in a Church which believes Christ’s words on marriage being between a man and a woman.
So there is no issue. There is no bigotry. All are catered for in a secular society.
‘So in essence if you stopped a gay getting bashed in the street Steve would argue that you are defending gay sex.’
Well, no. I would probably help you out if a gay man was getting bashed and you went to their rescue. It is the right thing to do. You would be helping a man. Whether he is gay or not is irrelevant. You are wrong in your assertion.
Coming back to reality, it was you who accused people who support the Biblical concept of marriage of hating gays. That is patently wrong, but you remain in such denial that you can’t see it, or you are a habitual liar, or you are simply stupid.
‘Or if you defended a Muslim from abject lies from the Christian Right, you are defending terrorists.’
Well ths is simply not true, and is an example of Bones’ vivd imagination and deciet at work. No one else reading what i write on these pages would even have the gall to agree with this stupidity.
‘Or if you told someone that a video painting Catholics as pagan was clearly wrong, you are a Catholic lover.’
You are a defender of Catholic dogma which is clearly, from an Evangelical standpoint, error. That is very obvious from your own defence of Catholic dogma on this blog.
But, look, there is nothing wrong with being a ‘Catholic lover’. You say it as if it is a bad thing. What I have said is that you accuse people who point out the error of marian dogma or purgatory of being haters of Catholics.
You see how you have twisted the argument to suit your poisonous imagination and create a case which doesn’t exist.
YOur arguments are seriously bordering on wickedness, Bones.
‘Or if you defend the right of asylum seekers to seek refuge in our land then you are helping the evil people smugglers.’
Again, you bend the truth to suit your anger and malice of thought with imaginative deception.
I defend the right of asylum seekers to enter this country, but through the accepted immigration channels, which are fair and generous. As I have said several times, we should take in as many as we can.
I also defend the right of the country to seize the initiative from people smugglers who send refuge seekers into the open sea in overcrowded, unseaworthy vessels, many to their deaths.
I do not say at all that you are ‘helping the evil people smugglers’. You made that up.
The truth is that it is you who have said that we who defend the right of our country to defend its borders against people smugglers therefore hate refugees.
That is an outright lie and fabrication. One of many I have called you out on.
Now you attempt to corrupt what I have said and make it something else.
You are a liar and a fraud.
We are done.
You are not worth the energy.
Oh, I think I’ve deciphered it.
Yes, I pressed you on the point of promoting homosexual sex as a lifestyle to get you to commit one way or the other.
I was very surprised to see that you actually stated that you did promote it as a lifestyle, but you stopped short of admitting that your commitment went as far as informing your own children of the benefits of homosexual intercourse as an alternative to heterosexual intercourse in marriage.
I went into this with you, Bones, because you published an excerpt from a paper which suggested that the various documented disadvantages of homosexual intercourse were fallacies and that is was perfectly acceptable for people to enjoy homosexual sex.
I wanted to get o a place with you where you actually stated that homosexual sex was something you yourself would not be adverse to on he basis of its completely natural appeal.
You got very angry with me when I suggested you would find it a simple matter to educate your children into the benefits of homosexual sex, so I take it you are either being defensive of them or defensive of homosexual sex, but you didn’t conform this, so i didn’t press further.
But it was Q who actually thought you were being facetious about it and was more forward in his aversion o your argument.
But you wee the one who, by your own argument and by your own admission, stated that you would actively promote the homosexual lifestyle, so I don;t see that you have anything to complain about. You laid that on yourself.
This subject and your promotion of he gay lifestyle could form the basis of another post and thread to discuss, but I would be reticent to debate anything with you because of the continually abrasive and destructive nature of your attitude towards commenters who disagree with you.
As for the rest of this post, we’re done.
The people smugglers will, tonight, be assessing their future knowing that it’s very probable that the game is up.
Abbott won. We need to pray for him as Christians, because, by all accounts, God has put him in position, and we are called upon as believers to intercede for our leaders regardless of their political persuasion.
Looks like I’ll stay in this thread.
Not much point in wasting my time with the censor nazi.
Actually Abbott has said he’;s going to keep all boat arrivals secret. So you won’t have to worry about people smugglers anymore.
I do not say at all that you are ‘helping the evil people smugglers’. You made that up.
Earlier in this thread:
Bones wants the people smugglers to call the shots, control our costumes and immigtpration departmens and set up our immigration policies.
Then we have:
I (Steve SIC) hate the criminals and people smugglers, no matter how much Bones champions their antics.
That’s interesting. Do you think Jesus hates people smugglers? Did he hate Oscar Schindler like you do?
Bones hates Jews so much he had to make a spiteful comment about them even tough they’re not the issue.
I would’ve put that in your other thread but I’m not going over to be censored.
Well enough said. Your words condemn you.
God is more disgusted with your lies than someone putting their penis up a guy’s butt.
When do I get to change people’s posts?
Steve, do you promote lying as a lifestyle?
yet I am told I cannot hate people, whether friend or foe.
Well that’s not true is it?
I hate the criminals and people smugglers…
I knew it was there. It was so obvious.
How is it possible to have Christ, and hate people? How is it possible to be led by the Holy Spirit, who is Love, and hate people? How is it possible to have the fruit of the Spirit and hate people?
Dunno you tell me? But it smells like someone has a giant dose of hypocrisy.
Hatred is of the flesh. If we hate we need to repent.
I agree with that.
Better do something about it then shouldn’t you.
After all you are a ‘genuine’ Christian.
I don’t hate anyone. Except my mother in law. That’s doin pretty good I reckon.
Well I repent every time I take communion, of sins committed or omitted, and that would be at least three communions ago.
But the statement was made, and you are right to point out that I said I hate the criminals and smugglers, which was wrong of me. Of course, and in consistency with what I have otherwise said, I do not hate the sinner.
I do hate their deeds, however, especially where they have taken advantage of refugees and put their lives and the lives of their children in danger.
Thank you for pointing out the error for me. I do repent of having written it. It as wrong for me to say it.
Now, Bones, you have attributed several incorrect assertions about me, and in profane terms. Will you deal with them? Or will you maintain that I hate refugees, gays, and anyone else you made the claim about?
Please note my apology, also, on the other thread.
Crikey this government’s been a joke and a disaster. One week in and it’s been keystone cops in charge.
Notice Tony isn’t that concerned about the emergency budget and described asylum seekers as a ‘passing irritant’.
Has he stopped the boats?
Abbott flees reporters after asylum seekers drown on way to Australia
PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has ignored reporters seeking information on up to 90 deaths after an asylum boat sank off the coast of Indonesia last night.
Up to 70 asylum seekers are still missing, feared drowned, after their boat broke up and sank en route to Australia.
At least 22 people, mostly children, are confirmed drowned after the boat, which was believed to be carrying about 120 passengers, struck rough seas on Friday off the coast of Java.
One of the passengers, a Lebanese man, had reportedly lost his pregnant wife and eight children in the disaster.
Just 25 of those aboard had been rescued before efforts to locate survivors were postponed last night due to failing light. The remainder were still in the water.
The boat broke up after it began taking on water about 6pm AEST.
The tragedy unfolded as the government sought to return two rescued groups to Indonesia.
Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, ignored reporters when asked about the tragedy shortly after he addressed a sporting function this morning.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/abbott-flees-reporters-after-asylum-seekers-drown-on-way-to-australia/story-fni0xqrb-1226728862846
When Abbott said “I’ll stop the boats”, he meant “I’ll stop talking about the boats”.
Can you show us where Mr Abbott called asylum seekers a passing irritant? I thought he was saying that the perceived row between the foreign ministers Indonesia and Australia, for which the Indonesians have since apologised, was what he called the passing irritant. Now you have joined the ranks of stupid commentators who deliberately misrepresent what was actually being said.
The policy of weekly briefings seems to be working. The media doesn’t know what to do with itself and the Opposition is beside itself with indignant arm flapping.
The only ones upset about this are the rumour hungry media pack. The Rudd days of daily emergencies and Rudd to the rescue, which was also the modus operandi of Gillard, have been put on the back burner, and we finally have a grown up in the driving seat rather than an attention seeker.
Since when did we have to have daily reports on anything. This isn’t CNN. This the government of Australia.
You see, Bones, it was wise to wait until more information cold be gathered before commenting on the tragic situation where a boat with asylum seekers sank just 50 metres from the Indonesian coast. Now more information is coming to light on what happened.
From today’s ABC report:
Members of the Indonesian military have been implicated in a fatal people-smuggling operation that may have killed up to 30 children.
The asylum seeker boat got into trouble last week and broke into pieces just off the south Java coast.
As many as 50 people are either dead or still missing, most of them children.
Another 10 bodies have been recovered, lifting the death toll to 31, and search and rescue operations have been suspended until the morning.
Those who did survive are helping Indonesian and Australian investigators to identify the people responsible.
The names of two key smugglers have emerged: Abu Saleh and another man called Abu Ali.
And embarrassingly, local authorities have again been implicated as playing a key role in getting the passengers to the boat.
Survivors said Indonesian soldiers helped ferry them to the coast where the doomed boat was waiting.
“The army took us,” one survivor said. “The army was driving the cars.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-29/indonesia-military-implicated-in-deaths-of-asylum-seekers/4987772
I think it is now very clearly you who needs to make amends for your rash comments on these issues. Mr Abbott had nothing to do with the sad plight of these asylum seekers, who must have known, at the very least, there was a change of Government, and that embarkation on an overcrowded, unseaworthy craft with untrustworthy crew was a risk they should not take. The people on the ground and people smugglers in Indonesia are clearly responsible.
Secondly, news outlets don’t need the Government to do their investigation and reporting for them.
The days when the Labor Party and Greens would give their daily spin to the media to feast on seem to be gone. Now the media needs to find out for itself through the timeless means of asking people at the scene of the event for testimony.
Meanwhile the Government gets on with showing leadership and solving problems.
And the Prime Minister is slowly but surely making it known that he is running the show, not the focus groups, not the spin-doctros, not the media circus, not Rudd-politics, but the Government is getting on with it without fanfare.
That is refreshing.
Last week, an asylum seeker boat sank 50 metres off the coast of Indonesia, killing 31 people.
The Government on Monday defended its response to the incident, with Immigration Minister Scott Morrison saying claims the authorities took more than 26 hours to respond to calls for help were “offensive (and) wrong”.
Operation Sovereign Borders Acting Commander Air Marshal Mark Binskin has given a detailed account of what happened and what the Australian authorities knew as events unfolded.
This is what he said happened on Friday, September 27. All times are in AEST.
7:10am
A passenger onboard the boat calls someone they know in Melbourne.
7:57am
Australian Federal Police on Christmas Island take a 12-minute phone call from a person in Melbourne, reporting the vessel needed assistance and saying the boat had “no food or water, was sinking and there were a number of unconscious people onboard”.
8:12am
The AFP advises the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Rescue Coordination Centre of the call.
8:26am
AMSA contacts the Melbourne person, who is unable to provide a location for the vessel.
9:05am
The Melbourne contact provides a mobile phone number for the passenger.
9:11am
The RCC speaks to a man onboard, who is also unable to provide a location.
9:44am
The RCC advises Indonesian search and rescue agency, BASARNAS, to request assistance.
9:46am – 9:55am
The RCC helps a man onboard, in an SMS text exchange, to provide a map reference, placing the vessel approximately 190 nautical miles north-north-east of Christmas Island and 25 nautical miles south of West Java.
10:07am
The RCC broadcasts an alert to shipping, requesting assistance from merchant ships. Four ships respond.
10:10am
The RCC contacts border protection command for assistance.
10:20am
The RCC requests the assistance of surveillance aircraft from Christmas Island. The aircraft is launched at 12:23pm.
10:25am
The RCC requests Defence assistance. Royal Air Force aircraft are launched at 2:27pm
10:41am
The RCC provides an update to BASARNAS and requests take-over coordination. BASARNAS is unable to take up the request.
11:15am
The RCC receives a text message notifying it of a second location, 110km east of the original position, eight nautical miles or 15km off the Indonesian coast and within Indonesian territorial waters.
12:50pm
The BPC aircraft conducts search operations, but is unable to locate the vessel.
4:40pm
The RCC and border protection command are made aware of a “maritime incident” in the vicinity of a reported vessel in distress.
5:00pm
The BPC aircraft returns to Christmas Island.
we finally have a grown up in the driving seat
Tony Abbott, who once described Kevin Rudd as a ”hyper-control freak” for his autocratic media management, has gagged his own ministers from media interviews without prior approval from the Prime Minister’s office.
The communications clampdown was issued hours after Education Minister Christopher Pyne revealed in an interview with Fairfax Media the government’s agenda to take an axe to the university sector (breaking .
It comes less than a week after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison put the announcement of asylum seeker boat arrivals behind a curtain of censorship.
Mr Abbott has declared his personal intention to be measured in his media appearances and ”take politics off the front page”.
The directive jogged memories inside Labor of Mr Abbott blasting Mr Rudd in 2007 after it was revealed that all media releases from government bodies must go through his department.
”It seems like an early exercise in hyper-control by the new Prime Minister’s office,” Mr Abbott said at the time. ”A lot of people said before the election that Kevin Rudd would turn out to be a bit of a control freak and this seems to be an interesting suggestion that those fears were quite well grounded.”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/button-up-abbott-to-keep-ministers-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stopped talking, and Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg sat up straight – Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was the boss today after all.
Making her world debut as chair of the United Nations Security Council in New York, Ms Bishop quickly had the full attention of some of the globe’s most important leaders as she declared: “The 7036 order.”
“Thank you Madame president for choosing the issue of small arms for the month of your presidency,” added the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.
His sentiments were echoed by foreign ministers from other states who praised Australia for its “hard work” in highlighting the issue of the proliferation and use of small arms and light weapons.
Ms Bishop beamed, and said: “I should note that Australia has built on the earlier work of others – including Argentina some years ago – to get to this point.”
What she could also have noted – but did not – was the work of Labor, who battled for four years amid fierce opposition from Ms Bishop herself to land a position on the Security Council.
“An expensive victory,” was how she and Tony Abbott put it when the campaign, started by former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2008 came to fruition last October.
“There is a limit to what can be achieved as a temporary member on the United Nations Security Council,” she told ABC TV at the time.
“Of course, the ultimate test will be in terms of success, what we have achieved for the benefit of the Australian people after two years on the Security Council as a temporary member.”
Most likely, as Ms Bishop kicks back tonight in her plush hotel near Grand Central with a view of New York’s sparkling Empire State Building, she is toasting that success.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/cool-calm-and-coiffed-julie-bishop-brings-worlds-leaders-to-heel-20130927-2uiwp.html#ixzz2gSgls0v2
F**king hypocrites
A treasurer who can’t count, a PM who admits knowing nothing about science but still calls climate science ‘crap’ and who is scared of the public. A government elected on what they’re not going to do.
Kudos to Steve for blaming the asylum seekers for their own deaths. (Cos Labor’s not in power)
You have truly become a spawn of the Right.
Golly Gosh, I’m glad I missed all that Bonsian tripe. We’ll move the discuss on to reason, shall we.
As I said a week before the election, the only way to solve the drownings and and control elements of the people smugglers would be through good diplomacy and a bilateral agreements.
Paul Kelly, a former critic of Abbott, writes,
In Jakarta, Abbott reached out to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in a personal, deferential and strategic sense.
The upshot is a situation once considered improbable. Abbott’s “make or break” pledge to stop the boats has become, in his words, a joint Australian-Indonesian project despite the different outlooks of the two nations…
Abbott … said that because of support “over the past 24 hours by every level of the Indonesian government” he felt the boats issue could be solved, a landmark comment. On display in Jakarta is a more subtle and calculating Abbott than many expected. He tells the Australian media there is no change to his policy yet he tells the Indonesians he is prepared to work with them…
Whether boats will ever be turned is a moot point but the only conclusion from Abbott’s remarks is that operational collaboration will govern such activity…
The Abbott style as overseas PM was on display for the first time – firm, humble, constructive. It is an interesting mix. He doesn’t pretend to be an Asia expert or the smartest person in the room or morally superior. He knows what he wants but he is adaptable.
It’s always best to take a logical look at things rather than leap to conclusions. Abbott’s pragmatic approach is starting to give the Australian Priminstership an adult look.
“We’ll move the discussion to reason, shall we.”
You are a hopeless optimist aren’t you!
The Australian has become Abbott’s bitch doing the bidding of t’s master.
A pressing case for standing up to Rupert Murdoch’s bullying
The shameless actions of News Ltd are a threat to our democracy.
News Ltd owns 70 per cent of the circulation of major newspapers in Australia. If Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, were an apolitical or a distant figure, this might not matter, but he has a powerful set of ideological beliefs and is determined to maintain tight control over the political line of all his papers on issues that interest him.
Politically engaged citizens have a plethora of accessible sources of information on the internet, but News Ltd’s capacity to influence the opinions of the vast majority of less engaged citizens – whose political understanding is shaped directly by the popular newspapers and indirectly through the commercial radio and television programs that rely on newspapers for content and, more deeply, for the way they interpret the world – is unjustifiable.
The company’s domination of our newspaper market poses a real and present danger to the health of Australian democracy.
Take, for example, the reported discussion by News Ltd editors and key journalists earlier this year about the need to do something about the minority Gillard government and its alliance with the Greens. Following that meeting, Murdoch tabloids began to campaign in earnest against the government and in particular against its carbon tax.
This power to distort political debate must be challenged and broken and the weakening of Murdoch’s grip on his global empire presents a unique opportunity to do so. The question, of course, is whether the government is willing to take what would undoubtedly be an extraordinary and perhaps unacceptable risk to regulate media ownership.
The second problem Murdoch poses for this country is embodied in The Australian. Under Chris Mitchell’s editorship, the paper has played the role not so much of reporter or interpreter but of national enforcer of those values that lie at the heart of the Murdoch empire: market fundamentalism and the beneficence of American global hegemony.
Unquestioning support for American foreign policy led the paper to conduct an extraordinarily strident campaign in favour of an invasion of Iraq – launched on the basis of false intelligence – which was responsible for perhaps 400,000 deaths, and for which it has never uttered a word of apology.
The Australian has conducted a prolonged and intellectually incoherent campaign against action on climate change and undermined the hold in public life of the central values of the Enlightenment, Science and Reason. This has helped make action by any Australian government on the most serious question of contemporary times far more difficult than it ought to have been.
The paper has conducted a series of high-volume and unbalanced campaigns directed against Labor governments, in which its journalists, rather than investigating a problem with an open mind, have often sought out evidence in support of a predetermined editorial conclusion. It has sought systematically to undermine the credibility of its only broadsheet rivals – The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age – and, in a relentless campaign, to intimidate and drive towards the right the only other mainstream source of analysis and opinion in this country, the ABC.
It has conducted a kind of jihad against the Greens, a party supported by 1.5 million of the nation’s citizens. By its own admission, it has devoted itself to the task of trying to have that party destroyed at the ballot box, a statement which in itself undermines any claim to fairness or to balance. The Australian has turned itself into a player in national politics without there being any means by which its actions can be held to account.
Even though its core value is the magic of the market, it is doubtful The Australian could survive without hidden financial subsidy from the global empire of its founding father, Rupert Murdoch, for whom it offers the most important means for influencing politics and commerce in the country of his birth.
There seems to be only one possible solution to the threat to democracy posed by The Australian: courageous external and internal criticism. The strange passivity of its two mainstream rivals, the Fairfax press and the ABC – even in the face of a constant barrage of criticism and lampooning – has left victims of the paper’s attacks vulnerable and friendless. There is an old joke that suggests that no individual ought to engage in battle with those who buy their ink by the barrel. But Fairfax and the ABC have the same arsenal of weapons at their disposal.
In the course of my research I have become aware that considerable unease is felt by journalists at The Australian about the political extremism and frequent irrationalism of the paper for which they work.
The paper employs many of the best journalists in the country. It only requires a different editor-in-chief and owner for it to become a truly outstanding newspaper.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-pressing-case-for-standing-up-to-rupert-murdochs-bullying-20110901-1jo2i.html#ixzz2gW1Tkiy1
You are a hopeless optimist aren’t you!
I’m loving this.
Heaps of gay action here.
Good to see fellas.
Bones said, with that familiar look of unbridled lust and delight in his eyes…
.”I’m loving this. Heaps of gay action here.”
lol
Just come out Dude!!!!
Greg will be oh so supportive.
lol
”I’m loving this. Heaps of gay action here.”
Is this what you said last weekend when you got together with your liberal mates too?
lol
So, Greg, when you finally have a get together with Wazza and Bones down in Sydney, you’ll have some ideas for entertainment.
BOnes, you’re sick man.
“Just come out Dude!!!!”
Silly me, I guess you already have.
Bones,
News Ltd owns 70 per cent of the circulation of major newspapers in Australia.
In fact News Ltd owns less than 30% of the newspapers circulated in Australia.
The 70% is made up by the percentage of people who purchase their papers.
This means News Ltd papers are significantly more popular than others.
Kevin Rudd used the disingenuous claim that Murdoch owned 70% of the papers even after he was told this was wrong.
Ownership isn’t the same as sales.
Maybe you should check the figures used in your sources, Bones.
You really are having a bad month.
I’m curious, though, Bones. Were you using the gay slur as an insult? I thought you were supportive of gays. Are you now showing your true prejudice?