Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[FxTrader]

I draw the line at overt hatemongering. I'm fairly liberal minded and I don't censor views based on whether or not I agree with them. I step in only when personal attacks/insults are thrown around or when someone is espousing particularly hateful views.

So then thinly veiled or barely concealed hatemongering (as aptly demonstrated in this thread IMO) can pass under your radar? Do personal attacks/insults and vilification directed at persons or peoples outside ASF, like referring collectively to asylum seekers as "scum bags" warrant your attention? If some here clearly display xenophobic traits, is it an insult to refer to them as xenophobic or does that constitute a personal attack or "name calling"?

What exactly constitutes "particularly hateful views" in your view, just how far can one go here? Are such boundaries aribitrary or well defined?

I like to encourage robust discussion and sometimes that involves unpopular or minority views being expressed, on both sides of the political spectrum. So just because I tolerate a lot of what is expressed in threads on ASF it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with or approve of particular points of view. It just means that I think people have a right to express them.

Since this is a closed community forum under your total control, the only "rights" people have here are those you grant to them. Being liberal minded and tolerant is great up to a point until it's exploited by others here to promote their fear and loathing of others, their creed or culture. IMO the comments in this thread create an ugly precedent for ASF, one that potentially does harm to its reputation. Platforms for people to promote their xenophobia and prejudices exist elsewhere and need not be a feature of a forum called Aussie "Stock" Forums.

 

[IFocus]

When the English, Italian and German immigrants came to Australia after WW11, they were a multicultural race who were prepared to marry and interact with Australians.

In WA 90% of Italian families would ostracize any female member that married outside of the community it was the 2nd / 3rd generations that allowed marriage of daughters into the wider community and you will still find many joke about marring a good Italian boy.

 

[ColB]

Original Post by FX at 12.40pm ONLY YESTERDAY!!

"...You need not be concerned about any further posts from me in this thread as I no longer wish to wallow in the cesspool of, and podium for, the promotion of bigotry and prejudice it has become.

FX Will you just honor what you say you will do! [See line 1]

Clearly the majority don't agree with your views and your adding nothing further to support your view other than drivel

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

So then thinly veiled or barely concealed hatemongering (as aptly demonstrated in this thread IMO) can pass under your radar? Do personal attacks/insults and vilification directed at persons or peoples outside ASF, like referring collectively to asylum seekers as "scum bags" warrant your attention? If some here clearly display xenophobic traits, is it an insult to refer to them as xenophobic or does that constitute a personal attack or "name calling"?

What exactly constitutes "particularly hateful views" in your view, just how far can one go here? Are such boundaries aribitrary or well defined?


Since this is a closed community forum under your total control, the only "rights" people have here are those you grant to them. Being liberal minded and tolerant is great up to a point until it's exploited by others here to promote their fear and loathing of others, their creed or culture. IMO the comments in this thread create an ugly precedent for ASF, one that potentially does harm to its reputation. Platforms for people to promote their xenophobia and prejudices exist elsewhere and need not be a feature of a forum called Aussie "Stock" Forums.

What you have to realise fxt is that people who do not necessarily agree with your basketweaving, citycentric, left wing opinions are not necessarily xenophobes or racist.

You really are a bit over the top mate.

Grow up , mature and engage in intelligent debate. You are a one person left wing Tea Party.

gg

 

[Joe Blow]

So then thinly veiled or barely concealed hatemongering (as aptly demonstrated in this thread IMO) can pass under your radar?

I haven't been following this thread in any great detail to be honest but it was brought to my attention a few days ago. I usually respond to reported posts, as do the moderators as that is the usual way we are notified of questionable posts.

Do personal attacks/insults and vilification directed at persons or peoples outside ASF, like referring collectively to asylum seekers as "scum bags" warrant your attention?

If I had to censor a post every time someone with any kind of public profile was called a "scum bag" I would have very little time to do anything else. Politicans are routinely called "scum bags" here, as are others in the public eye. It's not an obscene term, nor is it a racial epithet. It can be used to describe anyone for any reason. I have not seen any posts in this thread where anyone has been called a "scum bag" purely on the basis of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. However, I must admit to not having read all of the posts in this thread.

If some here clearly display xenophobic traits, is it an insult to refer to them as xenophobic or does that constitute a personal attack or "name calling"?

I don't see why it's necessary to refer to them at all. You can certainly describe their views as xenophobic if you feel that they are. But as soon as people start insulting and labelling each other things tend to go tit for tat until it gets out of hand and the debate/discussion degenerates to the point that it is no longer useful or constructive.

What exactly constitutes "particularly hateful views" in your view, just how far can one go here? Are such boundaries aribitrary or well defined?

Yes, such boundaries are arbitrarily defined. Every act of moderation is a judgment call. The overt vilification of groups based on race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is censored but discussion of issues relating to immigration are not.

Some here think I allow too much, while others think there is too much censorship. Threads are closed regularly when they get out of hand and this one is certainly a candidate for that. I try and allow for robust discussion with a variety of views presented and hope that those here at ASF can participate in a mature, civil and respectful debate. It doesn't always work out that way, but surprisingly it does most of the time.

Since this is a closed community forum under your total control, the only "rights" people have here are those you grant to them. Being liberal minded and tolerant is great up to a point until it's exploited by others here to promote their fear and loathing of others, their creed or culture. IMO the comments in this thread create an ugly precedent for ASF, one that potentially does harm to its reputation. Platforms for people to promote their xenophobia and prejudices exist elsewhere and need not be a feature of a forum called Aussie "Stock" Forums.

The General Chat forum is for the discussion of all issues that are not directly related to the stock market or trading/investing. When it comes to moderation I try and aim for a middle ground that may not please everyone all the time but allows for issues to be discussed from a variety of perspectives. Overt racism and vilification are censored but I have not seen overtly racist statements made in this thread as yet. Perhaps I have missed them? Criticism is different from vilification and it is possible to be critical of groups of people without vilifying them.

 

[noco]

What you have to realise fxt is that people who do not necessarily agree with your basketweaving, citycentric, left wing opinions are not necessarily xenophobes or racist.

You really are a bit over the top mate.

Grow up , mature and engage in intelligent debate. You are a one person left wing Tea Party.

gg

GG, I guess we have to tolerate all types on the ASF who have different opinions on a particular thread and whilst some of us can be extreme in our views on certain subjects, we all need to accept other ASF members argument without being personally critical.
We also have some members who are adamant that their view is the only one and that everyone should fall in behind and if you don't, then intimidation often takes place to silence those who oppose. We also have members who can't accept defeat and must have the last word to prove their point.
I trust since Joe Blows intervention on this particular thread, we can now continue to have constructive debate with the civility we all desire and deserve.

 

[albaby]

well said both noco and garpal and many thanks to joe for allowing a robust discussion.

 

[noco]

And so the bebate continues with absolutely no action from this incompetent Gillard Labor Government. How many more asylum seekers have to sacrifice their lives before a new policy is implimented.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rs-compassion/story-fn59niix-1225976419807and so the

 

[startrader]

I suggested previously that Australia should consider withdrawing from the Refugee Convention as it was written for a post WWII scenario and is unsuited for the problems of today. However, as every country must do its share, we should double our refugee intake, but only of those who come on our terms. I am sure this would prove less costly than the current scenario and at the same time help twice as many people.

It seems that others are thinking along those lines. This from today's The Australian (it also debunks the myth that there are no queues):

He (Mirko Bagaric, a Deakin University law professor who spent five years as a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal) has proposed a dramatic solution: more than doubling the offshore refugee intake to 30,000 annually while at same time permanently refusing refugee status "to any person who arrives on our shores unannounced".

Jumping asylum queue pays off

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m-queue-pays-off/story-fn59niix-1225975665987

I don't think we should double our refugee intake at all. I think that the Liberal Party's policy should be re-introduced, which would stop the boats from coming. The situation we have now with the sheer number of boat people coming in is entirely a problem of the Labor Government's making, a problem which did not even exist before they got into power and which could easily be solved by going back to the Liberal policy which worked.

The boat numbers have been steadily increasing since Labor came to power and the more we adjust our position to accommodate more people, the more people we are going to get.

 

[noco]

I don't think we should double our refugee intake at all. I think that the Liberal Party's policy should be re-introduced, which would stop the boats from coming. The situation we have now with the sheer number of boat people coming in is entirely a problem of the Labor Government's making, a problem which did not even exist before they got into power and which could easily be solved by going back to the Liberal policy which worked.

The boat numbers have been steadily increasing since Labor came to power and the more we adjust our position to accommodate more people, the more people we are going to get.

Yes startrader I agree with your sentiments. The problems that concerns me most of all(and don't get me wrong for I do believe in immigration in a controlled and orderly way) is :-

a) the $80,000 per head per year cost to the tax payer and for how long.
b) the element arriving without passport or some ID could have criminal records or even with terrorist intentions. It is well known we have sleeping cells of terrorist in Australia.
c) there could be a mixed class of people entering without trade skills or of professional ability to make a worth while contribution to society.
d) the threat of Islamic infiltration similar to what has happened in Sweden and other European countries.
e) the loss of life that has happened in venturing on the high seas in unseaworthy boats.
f) the inequality between our homeless, indigenous and pensioners compared to the much higher concessions given to asylum seekers by our government.

The Labor government must change their policy and do it fast.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Yes startrader I agree with your sentiments. The problems that concerns me most of all(and don't get me wrong for I do believe in immigration in a controlled and orderly way) is :-

a) the $80,000 per head per year cost to the tax payer and for how long.
b) the element arriving without passport or some ID could have criminal records or even with terrorist intentions. It is well known we have sleeping cells of terrorist in Australia.
c) there could be a mixed class of people entering without trade skills or of professional ability to make a worth while contribution to society.
d) the threat of Islamic infiltration similar to what has happened in Sweden and other European countries.
e) the loss of life that has happened in venturing on the high seas in unseaworthy boats.
f) the inequality between our homeless, indigenous and pensioners compared to the much higher concessions given to asylum seekers by our government.

The Labor government must change their policy and do it fast.

Noco, I certainly preferred the Howard Government policy on migration and refugees, and agree totally with your sentiments.

It is unfair to have these people being abused by unscrupulous Indonesian boat owners, and unfair to us to have them dumped on our shores.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Noco, I came across a Law that governs people like Fx;

Alinsky's Rule For Radicals

Those who are most moral are farthest from the problem.

 

[noco]

Noco, I came across a Law that governs people like Fx;

Alinsky's Rule For Radicals

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Noco, I came across a Law that governs people like Fx;

Alinsky's Rule For Radicals

Thanks Calliope, you've given me links to a man I knew nothing about with radical libertarian ideals.

I wonder how he would have approached the problems of mass illegal migration. I'll delve into his works.

gg

 

[pixel]

It is unfair to have these people being abused by unscrupulous Indonesian boat owners, and unfair to us to have them dumped on our shores.

The unfairness lies one stage further back:
It is unfair to stand idly by when militant hordes wage war of oppression against sections of their own people. That is where the "unfairness" starts, and that is where it must be stopped.
frankly, I find it bemusing. when I see able-bodied young men coming to our shores, claiming asylum and requesting that our young men and women protect them from the wild animals in their own countries. How many of them are enlisting, get a good training, and go back to join the fight? Speaking the language, knowing the lie of the land and customs, they ought to be far more effective and efficient "instructors" to their budding security forces. And it can't be any more dangerous than hitting the open seas in a wooden nutshell to try and get to Ashmore or Christmas Island?
Coming to think of it, they may find even greater incentive to rid their country of pests, if they know that women and children are finding temporary asylum in Australia and will join them back home as soom as the job is done.

 

[startrader]

The unfairness lies one stage further back:
It is unfair to stand idly by when militant hordes wage war of oppression against sections of their own people. That is where the "unfairness" starts, and that is where it must be stopped.
frankly, I find it bemusing. when I see able-bodied young men coming to our shores, claiming asylum and requesting that our young men and women protect them from the wild animals in their own countries. How many of them are enlisting, get a good training, and go back to join the fight? Speaking the language, knowing the lie of the land and customs, they ought to be far more effective and efficient "instructors" to their budding security forces. And it can't be any more dangerous than hitting the open seas in a wooden nutshell to try and get to Ashmore or Christmas Island?
Coming to think of it, they may find even greater incentive to rid their country of pests, if they know that women and children are finding temporary asylum in Australia and will join them back home as soom as the job is done.

Unbelievably good point! I was thinking something along the same lines lately and I find it very surprising that I have never heard anyone make this point before. I would hazard a guess that in answer to your question about how many are enlisting, the answer is probably "none".

 

[Julia]

Noco, I came across a Law that governs people like Fx;

Alinsky's Rule For Radicals

Interesting suggestion. Before I decided it was useless to further engage with FX I'd been considering asking him what actual personal contact he had had with asylum seekers, and further what he personally had done to advantage them.

If you're still around, FX, the answers to the above would be interesting.

Further, the point that so many of us have made repeatedly, i.e. about the homeless and disadvantaged in our society, was brought home in the 7.30 Report this evening with some of the realities of our own homeless people depicted in all its reality.

This is what many on the Left are missing, i.e. that we so ignore and fail to assist our own Australian citizens who have fallen on hard times, whilst we offer full board, meals, all medical and dental assistance, plus later social welfare to people about whom we have little knowledge and whose culture and ideology is very different from our own.

Our hundreds of thousands of homeless Australians are sleeping under bridges whilst asylum seekers are complaining if their air conditioning is less than 100% functional.

I heard a radio report a couple of days ago which described the Christmas Day in the various detention centres. It encompassed a visit from Santa, christmas presents for all, and some special food.

Perhaps these people deserve every bit of this. I simply don't know.

But in the meantime, we are dreadfully failing our own often mentally ill and otherwise disadvantaged people, and that's immensely offensive to me considering the billions the government is wasting in so many directions.

Unbelievably good point! I was thinking something along the same lines lately and I find it very surprising that I have never heard anyone make this point before. I would hazard a guess that in answer to your question about how many are enlisting, the answer is probably "none".

The point has been made many times before. That does not lessen its validity.

 

[Vicki]

Quote Originally Posted by pixel View Post
The unfairness lies one stage further back:
It is unfair to stand idly by when militant hordes wage war of oppression against sections of their own people. That is where the "unfairness" starts, and that is where it must be stopped.
frankly, I find it bemusing. when I see able-bodied young men coming to our shores, claiming asylum and requesting that our young men and women protect them from the wild animals in their own countries. How many of them are enlisting, get a good training, and go back to join the fight? Speaking the language, knowing the lie of the land and customs, they ought to be far more effective and efficient "instructors" to their budding security forces. And it can't be any more dangerous than hitting the open seas in a wooden nutshell to try and get to Ashmore or Christmas Island?
Coming to think of it, they may find even greater incentive to rid their country of pests, if they know that women and children are finding temporary asylum in Australia and will join them back home as soom as the job is done.

Good on you pixel, for saying what a lot of us are thinking.

Maybe the priminister could bring about such a policy, that if you [able bodied young men] want asylum for their families, from oppression that our young men & women are fighting & die'n, to defeat, in their home countries...Then I think it only fair, that the same should requested from them.
They could then be focussed on what has to be done, rather than worry about their families safety.

Maybe some decent progress & co-operation could be achieved in places like Afgahnistan, where it appears people are weary of committing to the Western forces, for fear of reprisals from Taliban etc.

Only way in my view, of hav'n any chance of success there, is the true support of their ordinary people!
If they truly want to have change, then they have to committ for it to happen.

Meanwhile I feel awful when I see & hear of innocents being shot & bombed etc.
And our soldiers being put in harms way.

Vicki

 

[IFocus]

The unfairness lies one stage further back:
It is unfair to stand idly by when militant hordes wage war of oppression against sections of their own people. That is where the "unfairness" starts, and that is where it must be stopped.
frankly, I find it bemusing. when I see able-bodied young men coming to our shores, claiming asylum and requesting that our young men and women protect them from the wild animals in their own countries. How many of them are enlisting, get a good training, and go back to join the fight? Speaking the language, knowing the lie of the land and customs, they ought to be far more effective and efficient "instructors" to their budding security forces. And it can't be any more dangerous than hitting the open seas in a wooden nutshell to try and get to Ashmore or Christmas Island?
Coming to think of it, they may find even greater incentive to rid their country of pests, if they know that women and children are finding temporary asylum in Australia and will join them back home as soom as the job is done.

Pixel this may explain a little by Dr William Maley about the Afghans.

Why do refugees from Afghanistan continue to seek protection in other parts of the world?
The reasons are complex, and reflect the interaction of state disintegration, political
mobilisation based on ethnic and sectarian social cleavages and a criminalised economy, and
gross human rights violations. I shall discuss each of these in turn. It is important to note
that not all of Afghanistan is unstable, not all Afghans seek asylum abroad, and that the
1990s actually witnessed a substantial voluntary repatriation of refugees from neighbouring
countries.[12] But it is also important to note that most of those who returned in the 1990s
were ethnic Pushtuns, whereas the bulk of those arriving in Australia are from non-Pushtun
minorities. The explanation lies in the dynamics of Afghan politics.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/resources/reports/malley-afghan-2.pdf

 

[pixel]

Pixel this may explain a little by Dr William Maley about the Afghans.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/resources/reports/malley-afghan-2.pdf

none of which explains why Australian men and women should risk their lives if Afghanis, of whatever ethnicity, aren't prepared to fight at least with them.

IMHO, the UN declarations of human rights missed one important point:
Freedom, respect, peaceful existence should be every person's rights; but just like love, they cannot be demanded. They have to be earned.