ABC is Political

[Tisme]

While he didn't meet make it on your prevention index from his time in immigration, I'm still at a loss at what in your mind does. You've had some time to think about that now.

In being on top of his brief, he's made a good start in social security.

I doubt you have any interest in points of view that aren't LNP biased. Any opinion I posted about this fellow would be seen as unsavoury in your LNP saturated world....truth or dare

I'm willing to give Scott cudos for being straight up and honest. Upto now I observed him to be transparently slippery and uncooperative to the broader community (IMO).

 

[drsmith]

I'm willing to give Scott cudos for being straight up and honest. Upto now I observed him to be transparently slippery and uncooperative to the broader community (IMO).

What about cudos for stopping the boats or alternatively offer something else that's up to the measure on your prevention index.

 

[Tisme]

What about cudos for stopping the boats or alternatively offer something else that's up to the measure on your prevention index.

See the thing is that you predicate the argument on your own most important determinant. There is no space in your argument for ambivalence or opposite preferred outcomes.

Why am I compelled to agree with stopping the boats based on some political party dogma? Why is it OK to set up nurseries of future antagonists to our society by putting dispossessed people in internment camps. By simple logic if a person is prepared to boat it into Australia with limited means, how long before another attempt once cashed up with better means and a shorter projected route, except this time scores need to be settled.... worse the offspring of those who have suffered incarceration and camp fever.

 

[drsmith]

See the thing is that you predicate the argument on your own most important determinant. There is no space in your argument for ambivalence or opposite preferred outcomes.

Why am I compelled to agree with stopping the boats based on some political party dogma? Why is it OK to set up nurseries of future antagonists to our society by putting dispossessed people in internment camps. By simple logic if a person is prepared to boat it into Australia with limited means, how long before another attempt once cashed up with better means and a shorter projected route, except this time scores need to be settled.... worse the offspring of those who have suffered incarceration and camp fever.

You attack the current solution and the minister that was responsible for it so the question remains a simple one.

What's your alternative ?

 

[Tisme]

What's your alternative ?

Hope for a political party who will think of something that can be constitutionally implemented, reflects our professed civilised society and that isn't economically driven French Devil's island stuff. I have a feeling we will have to wait until the Brits do our thinking for us as usual.

 

[Bintang]

Hope for a political party who will think of something that can be constitutionally implemented, reflects our professed civilised society and that isn't economically driven French Devil's island stuff. I have a feeling we will have to wait until the Brits do our thinking for us as usual.

Which of the Brits? the Labor, the Conservative, the Lib Dems or UKIP?
Perhaps you should check out a shariah law controlled UK no-go zone before wishing for a Brit type 'solution'.

But bottom line is you clearly don't have an alternative to offer.

 

[Bintang]

I have a feeling we will have to wait until the Brits do our thinking for us as usual.

While Tisme waits for the Brits to “do our thinking for us” it's interesting that the UKIP party is heading to the UK’s May general election with an immigration policy based on ‘Australia having done their thinking for them’.

'We can't accommodate you' - Farage rolls out immigration policy
“Immigration policy in the UK should mimic the Australian-style points system, UKIP leader Nigel Farage told radio listeners on Monday, providing early insight into the party’s 2015 manifesto.”

So I guess the Brits Tisme is referring to would have to be from the other UK political parties who have allowed an open–door policy - the very policy which UKIP is campaigning against.

 

[Tisme]

Which of the Brits? the Labor, the Conservative, the Lib Dems or UKIP?
Perhaps you should check out a shariah law controlled UK no-go zone before wishing for a Brit type 'solution'.

But bottom line is you clearly don't have an alternative to offer.

Should I? Who decided I have to provide a solution?

 

[Tisme]

While Tisme waits for the Brits to “do our thinking for us” it's interesting that the UKIP party is heading to the UK’s May general election with an immigration policy based on ‘Australia having done their thinking for them’.

'We can't accommodate you' - Farage rolls out immigration policy
“Immigration policy in the UK should mimic the Australian-style points system, UKIP leader Nigel Farage told radio listeners on Monday, providing early insight into the party’s 2015 manifesto.”

So I guess the Brits Tisme is referring to would have to be from the other UK political parties who have allowed an open–door policy - the very policy which UKIP is campaigning against.

Howse the view up there on your high horse Bintang?

I don't know why you are upset, the LNP has been taking it's orders from the Brit Conserves forever.

 

[Bintang]

Howse the view up there on your high horse Bintang?

I don't know why you are upset, the LNP has been taking it's orders from the Brit Conserves forever.

Not upset at all. Just puzzled by your reasoning since the Brit Conserves are acting more like our Labor party on immigration - ie. open the borders and let the hordes invade.

 

[drsmith]

Should I? Who decided I have to provide a solution?

To use the words of a fine minister of this government,

We live in the hope that there's more to your good self than just unfunded moral empathy.

 

[drsmith]

Side articles to the ABC's George Brandis censured by Senate news article,

The speech Abbott could have made about Triggs
Crabb: Triggs takes punches that should be hitting Labor
Fact check: Triggs correct on children in detention
The Drum: Brandis v Triggs
The Drum: How will history judge detention policies?
The Drum: HRC attacks unbefitting our government
Professor shocked by Christmas Island visit
Abbott loses confidence in Triggs

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...ate-after-criticism-of-gillian-triggs/6274294

 

[basilio]

Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.

The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.

In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee

Attacks on Commission unbefitting our government
Opinion
By Ben Saul

Updated 16 Feb 2015, 1:24pm

The Federal Government should have owned up to the damage being wrought on innocent children in detention. Instead, it launched an extraordinary and grossly inappropriate attack on the messenger, writes Ben Saul.

......Finally, president Triggs should not resign. She has done her job. She is an international lawyer of global standing. She faithfully applied the law. Like most international lawyers, Triggs is not radical. International law is, after all, made by governments. She was Dean of this country's oldest sandstone law school - hardly a hotbed of revolution. She was once an oil and gas lawyer. I worked with her for five years and I can swear beyond doubt that she is not politically motivated to target the Coalition.

If anyone should be seriously questioning their judgment and position, it is the Attorney-General. By pressuring Triggs to resign, on grounds not recognised in the Commission's statute, Senator Brandis sought to improperly interfere with the tenure of an independent statutory officer holder. On the weekend, the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia took the rare step of issuing a joint statement to condemn the "unprecedented attack" on Triggs.

Representing all Australian lawyers and barristers, those two peak bodies - hardly anti-Coalition - declared that:

Personal criticism directed at her or at any judicial or quasi-judicial officer fulfilling the duties of public office as required by law is an attack upon the independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection.

The President of the Human Rights Commission holds the next closest thing to a judicial office, being both tenured and exercising quasi-judicial powers. Brandis's actions should be viewed in this light - as if he were leaning on a judge to resign because he didn't like the court's decision. Such an attack on the rule of law is conduct grossly unbefitting of an Attorney-General and a barrister.

How should a mature, child-friendly government have responded to the report? By facing the music, owning up to the damage wrought on innocent children, and making it right. A government that trivialises child abuse, and is pathologically hostile towards a Commission that seeks to make children safe, is unfit to govern our country.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

 

[noco]

Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.

The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.

In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

None of this would have happened in the first place had the Green/Labor left wing socialist not opened the boarders to people smugglers and allowed 50,000 illegals in to Australia, costing the tax payers well over $11 billion and climbing..
Gillian Triggs is a pawn in the Labor Party political game...There is no doubt she was instructed by Bowen and Burke to with hold the report until after the 2013 election....Triggs never said a word about the 2000 kids in detention and the hundreds who lost their lives at sea under Green/Labor Party 2008/2013. She went on to report how Labor processed these illegals faster than the Liberals and it was because the detention centers were full to over flowing and Labor released them into the community without proper checks.

 

[Tisme]

Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.

The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.

In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee

It's an odd thing that people will not see what they don't want to see. Once the political die is cast, it takes immense self determination to change the tribal loyalty and associated obduration.

We all know the reaction when the guilty are confronted with the truth of an unsavoury act:- shout foul then blame someone else, shoot the messenger. But if it's one of our inner circle at fault we make mental apologies and excuses to forgive and perpetuate lie for them.

I don't know why we compromise our good selves to protect people we don't even know, but when it comes to politics people are so disappointing. I don't like the pompous way Triggs handles herself, but I don't think she deserves being used as a tool to drive the polls up.

 

[drsmith]

Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.

The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.

In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

What exactly is the next closest thing to a judicial office ?

Is it a judicial office or not ?

I can add a few headlines to the ABC's collection,

Detention centres are a prison, well, not quiet.
Armed guards at Xmas Island detention centre, again, well, not quiet.
Children in detention is the broader issue and not people smuggling itself with all the consequences that it brings.
Calling an enquiry into children in detention while the government that drew the boats to our shores is still in office is political.
The 10-year anniversary of a previous enquiry is more important to the HRC than people including children drowning at sea.

 

[IFocus]

What exactly is the next closest thing to a judicial office ?

Is it a judicial office or not ?

I can add a few headlines to the ABC's collection,

Thanks for that DR you wont find them over at the Liberal Daily

 

[drsmith]

Thanks for that DR you wont find them over at the Liberal Daily

You could try to answer the questions they raise.

From what you refer to as the Lib Daily,

Now the ABC has even used its Fact Checking Unit to check one of the few points made by Triggs that no one challenges and that adds nothing to the debate.

“Correct” finds the ABC after examining Triggs’s statement that under the Coalition children, on average, have spent longer in detention.

It is an unavoidable calculation — when no more children are going into detention and 90 per cent have been removed, the average period will automatically rise.

Add to that the practical consideration that the children who remain will be the difficult cases and you are looking at a statement of the obvious.

The ABC could have decided to fact check the 90 per cent claim. But didn’t.

The ABC could have fact checked Triggs’ erroneous claim that armed guards patrol detention centres. But didn’t.

The ABC could have fact checked her likening of detention centres to prisons but, not to worry, she retracted that herself.

ABC viewers and audiences will still be unaware that, according to her own evidence, Triggs decided within weeks of taking over at AHRC in July 2012 that the issue of children in detention was urgent and an inquiry was warranted.

Neither will not know that despite those apparently heartfelt concerns Triggs did not call an inquiry in 2012 and continued to discuss an inquiry in 2013 but failed to call one.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../on_2gb_tonight_sanity_restored/#commentsmore

 

[noco]

You could try to answer the questions they raise.

From what you refer to as the Lib Daily,



http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../on_2gb_tonight_sanity_restored/#commentsmore

From what I see about the situation where Triggs stated the Green/Labor removed the kids faster from detention than the Liberal Party was because the detention centers were full to overflowing and the Green/Labor coalition processed them without thorough check and released them into the community to make room for new arrivals....It makes me boil when I see how get things so distorted from the truth.

 

[Bintang]

....It makes me boil when I see how get things so distorted from the truth.

No use getting boiled up. Truth is just a victim of politics.
As George Orwell said a long time ago:

“Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful ……”

“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”