Australia General Discussion Thread

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Yay for Co-Ed Catholic schools...

My house has won six of the last seven swimming carnivals. No need to do anything, except this year I was made to hand out teacher's lunches, which was amusing.

When you Aussies mention '[school] houses' you're referring to these, right?

So who's excited for the Cricket World Cup tomorrow?

I don't know who to support between South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Yes, we are.

Just support the one who comes out in the best position

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

When you Aussies mention '[school] houses' you're referring to these, right?


I don't know who to support between South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Yes, we are.

Ah! We have those too.

Just support the one who comes out in the best position

For as much as I repudiate my Zimbabwean nationality on a daily basis I think I'll settle for Zimbabwe...Unless they perform poorly in which case I'll wave a South African flag all around Cape Town.

[Beta Test]

Zimbabwe is such a sad case. Mugabe ruined that country, including it's cricket team.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

Zimbabwe is such a sad case. Mugabe ruined that country, including it's cricket team.

When I go over all the things that man did to my country and my family something very odd happens to me; it's an indescribable feeling somewhere between helplessness and an extreme form of anger.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Zimbabwe is such a sad case. Mugabe ruined that country, including it's cricket team.

When I go over all the things that man did to my country and my family something very odd happens to me; it's an indescribable feeling somewhere between helplessness and an extreme form of anger.

That would probably happen to a (white) Zimbabwean friend of mine...

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

When I go over all the things that man did to my country and my family something very odd happens to me; it's an indescribable feeling somewhere between helplessness and an extreme form of anger.

That would probably happen to a (white) Zimbabwean friend of mine...

Oh well! There's nothing I can do about it; I doubt they'll renew my passport in two years' time so I'll just become a naturalised South African citizen and attempt to claim British citizenship through my mother.

[Reddogkeno101]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... 3du7s.html
Jesus, Abbott really is crazy. Threatening the independence and integrity of an organisation that is criticizing the Federal gov.

[Geilinor]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-abbott-government-tried-to-remove-gillian-triggs-as-head-of-the-australian-human-rights-commission-20150213-13du7s.html
Jesus, Abbott really is crazy. Threatening the independence and integrity of an organisation that is criticizing the Federal gov.

Mr Abbott has branded the report a "transparent stitch-up", saying the commission would have been better advised to write former immigration minister Scott Morrison a congratulatory letter for stopping the boats.

Apparently there's no bias involved when it supports him.

[Reddogkeno101]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-abbott-government-tried-to-remove-gillian-triggs-as-head-of-the-australian-human-rights-commission-20150213-13du7s.html
Jesus, Abbott really is crazy. Threatening the independence and integrity of an organisation that is criticizing the Federal gov.

Mr Abbott has branded the report a "transparent stitch-up", saying the commission would have been better advised to write former immigration minister Scott Morrison a congratulatory letter for stopping the boats.

Apparently there's no bias involved when it supports him.

Now he's making these comments and threatening the independence of the Commision, he should probably step down or be charged with treason, because that is treason what he's doing.

[The Conez Imperium]

Apparently there's no bias involved when it supports him.

Now he's making these comments and threatening the independence of the Commision, he should probably step down or be charged with treason, because that is treason what he's doing.

There's a reason why we have independent commissions into Human rights...

[Reddogkeno101]

Now he's making these comments and threatening the independence of the Commision, he should probably step down or be charged with treason, because that is treason what he's doing.

There's a reason why we have independent commissions into Human rights...

I'm talking about Abbott getting tried for treason.

[The Conez Imperium]

There's a reason why we have independent commissions into Human rights...

I'm talking about Abbott getting tried for treason.

Well treason is defined as....

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995,[3] defines treason as follows:
"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

(a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;

that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
(g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or
(h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."

As much as I would like to see Abbott kicked out of government, we can't try him for treason in Australia. I reckon we should try him at the Hague for breaking International Refugee laws.

[Reddogkeno101]

I'm talking about Abbott getting tried for treason.

Well treason is defined as....

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995,[3] defines treason as follows:
"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

(a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;

that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
(g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or
(h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."

As much as I would like to see Abbott kicked out of government, we can't try him for treason in Australia. I reckon we should try him at the Hague for breaking International Refugee laws.

True and damn right. Send Vlad 'The Lad' there while we're at it for breaking the rules of war too.

[Mostrov]

And we are going to do detain the leaders of every major country for similar violations of Human Rights?

Yeah, lets Hang Obama because of Guantanamo Bay. He is Hitler!
And Julia Gillard for the Malaysia Solution too (and her actions at not preventing any change). And the Mandatory Detention introduced should similarly be regarded?

I haven't seen people advocating the trial and sentencing of Rudd, GIllard, Keating and Howard. All of these performed equivalent violations under international obligation.

Abbott has done nothing regarding refugees that hasn't been consistently demanded by the electorate of Australia.

Regarding whether the pressure applied to the Human Rights Commission is actually threatening its integrity - I am skeptical, what exactly has actually changed in that it is no subordinate to the Government? Does he actually have legal powers to do so?
As far as I can determine it was merely 'asked', not forced, which is within the power of the government. Whether this is demonstrating integrity on their behalf is a valid question; but I don't think that integrity is a common currency amongst politicians.
Nor is denouncing a report actually illegal. Politicians aren't legally required to tell the truth either.

Just as a reminder that elections are illegal, putting those who he disagrees with and finds 'confronting' into liquidation camps, as well as the outlawing of abortion.

Terrible as he may be he is actually constrained by his Party and the Law.

[Reddogkeno101]

Abbott has done nothing regarding refugees that hasn't been consistently demanded by the electorate of Australia.

So are we now suggesting that populism is the way to go?
My mum is one of those people who support the asylum seeker policies of Liberals and I regularly point out that it's racist, wrong and illegal. She also says we should get more immigrants from Southern Europe and not from the 'Muslim countries', but when I point out that is very similar to, I don't know, the White Australia policy, she denies it.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

Abbott has done nothing regarding refugees that hasn't been consistently demanded by the electorate of Australia.

So are we now suggesting that populism is the way to go? My mum is one of those people who support the asylum seeker policies of Liberals and I regularly point out that it's racist, wrong and illegal.

1. Saying something is wrong is not a valid argument. Instead you should explain why it's wrong.
2. How is it illegal?
3. I wouldn't say it's racist; it's natural for countries to have their own immigration policies. What country wants to be overrun by refugees from faraway lands? Yes, Australia is one of the the wealthiest countries on Earth but it still has the right to keep its wealth to its citizens.

She also says we should get more immigrants from Southern Europe and not from the 'Muslim countries', but when I point out that is very similar to, I don't know, the White Australia policy, she denies it.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. A vocal minority has been involved in terrorist attacks; it is rational (even if ultimately wrong) to fear the entire group by association.

[Mostrov]

Abbott has done nothing regarding refugees that hasn't been consistently demanded by the electorate of Australia.

So are we now suggesting that populism is the way to go?
My mum is one of those people who support the asylum seeker policies of Liberals and I regularly point out that it's racist, wrong and illegal. She also says we should get more immigrants from Southern Europe and not from the 'Muslim countries', but when I point out that is very similar to, I don't know, the White Australia policy, she denies it.

I'm not - just suggesting that Abbott himself is not, in fact, "evil".

If you want to take issue with the policy take issue with the electorate, your mother for one.
Should we try her for treason? And take her to the Hague?
She is evidently racist and a horrible person so...

That is the logic you are applying.

[Reddogkeno101]

So are we now suggesting that populism is the way to go? My mum is one of those people who support the asylum seeker policies of Liberals and I regularly point out that it's racist, wrong and illegal.

1. Saying something is wrong is not a valid argument. Instead you should explain why it's wrong.
2. How is it illegal?
3. I wouldn't say it's racist; it's natural for countries to have their own immigration policies. What country wants to be overrun by refugees from faraway lands? Yes, Australia is one of the the wealthiest countries on Earth but it still has the right to keep its wealth to its citizens.

She also says we should get more immigrants from Southern Europe and not from the 'Muslim countries', but when I point out that is very similar to, I don't know, the White Australia policy, she denies it.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. A vocal minority has been involved in terrorist attacks; it is rational (even if ultimately wrong) to fear the entire group by association.

Okay.
1. It's is morally objectional having other human beings in concentration camps
2. We have a legal obligation to take them in as refugees whether or not they come by boat or not is irrelevant, they are still refugees fleeing for their lives
3. I wouldn't say Apartheid was racist, but then I'd be lying. Australia is a multicultural nation built on immigration, much like the United States. We have a legal obligation to take in people who seek to claim asylum as they are refugees. Economic migrants should be deported, however those fleeing persecution should be taken in.

Next
1. I never said it was. However she implies from 'Muslim Countries' the Arabic States such as Iraq, etc
2. A minority has indeed conducted a terrorist attack, it is not rational to fear the entire group by association, because there is a word for that; it's called Xenophobia: fearing something foreign or unknown.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

1. Saying something is wrong is not a valid argument. Instead you should explain why it's wrong.
2. How is it illegal?
3. I wouldn't say it's racist; it's natural for countries to have their own immigration policies. What country wants to be overrun by refugees from faraway lands? Yes, Australia is one of the the wealthiest countries on Earth but it still has the right to keep its wealth to its citizens.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. A vocal minority has been involved in terrorist attacks; it is rational (even if ultimately wrong) to fear the entire group by association.

Okay.
1. It's is morally objectional having other human beings in concentration camps
2. We have a legal obligation to take them in as refugees whether or not they come by boat or not is irrelevant, they are still refugees fleeing for their lives
3. I wouldn't say Apartheid was racist, but then I'd be lying. Australia is a multicultural nation built on immigration, much like the United States. We have a legal obligation to take in people who seek to claim asylum as they are refugees. Economic migrants should be deported, however those fleeing persecution should be taken in.

1. I would support their repatriation and if that is impossible relocation to Papua New Guinea and other countries in the region which agree to it.
2. Please provide me with a source that demonstrates this legal obligation.
3. Read #2.

Next
1. I never said it was. However she implies from 'Muslim Countries' the Arabic States such as Iraq, etc
2. A minority has indeed conducted a terrorist attack, it is not rational to fear the entire group by association, because there is a word for that; it's called Xenophobia: fearing something foreign or unknown.

1. Okay.
2. Yes, it is. I don't necessarily agree with it; what I'm saying is that from an evolutionary point of view it is natural to fear anything foreign. When that foreign ''thing'' (or elements of it) are shown to be dangerous fear is to be expected.

[Reddogkeno101]

Okay.
1. It's is morally objectional having other human beings in concentration camps
2. We have a legal obligation to take them in as refugees whether or not they come by boat or not is irrelevant, they are still refugees fleeing for their lives
3. I wouldn't say Apartheid was racist, but then I'd be lying. Australia is a multicultural nation built on immigration, much like the United States. We have a legal obligation to take in people who seek to claim asylum as they are refugees. Economic migrants should be deported, however those fleeing persecution should be taken in.

1. I would support their repatriation and if that is impossible relocation to Papua New Guinea and other countries in the region which agree to it.
2. Please provide me with a source that demonstrates this legal obligation.
3. Read #2.

Next
1. I never said it was. However she implies from 'Muslim Countries' the Arabic States such as Iraq, etc
2. A minority has indeed conducted a terrorist attack, it is not rational to fear the entire group by association, because there is a word for that; it's called Xenophobia: fearing something foreign or unknown.

1. Okay.
2. Yes, it is. I don't necessarily agree with it; what I'm saying is that from an evolutionary point of view it is natural to fear anything foreign. When that foreign ''thing'' (or elements of it) are shown to be dangerous fear is to be expected.

1. repatriation would involve taking a refugee to somewhere to where they are at risk of death. Nope not okay. PNG is not exactly a shining place where it's all fun and games; they came to get to Australia.
2. k - so here is something saying the UN said nope: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/u ... um/4845628
here is an actual document: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
3. http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/CO-59 and above
next
1.k
2. Well here's a newsflash; we're not in the stone age anymore and, here we go, morality and ethics has expanded past the stone age.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

1. I would support their repatriation and if that is impossible relocation to Papua New Guinea and other countries in the region which agree to it.
2. Please provide me with a source that demonstrates this legal obligation.
3. Read #2.

1. Okay.
2. Yes, it is. I don't necessarily agree with it; what I'm saying is that from an evolutionary point of view it is natural to fear anything foreign. When that foreign ''thing'' (or elements of it) are shown to be dangerous fear is to be expected.

1. repatriation would involve taking a refugee to somewhere to where they are at risk of death. Nope not okay. PNG is not exactly a shining place where it's all fun and games; they came to get to Australia.

You said Australia shouldn't deport economic immigrants. While Papua New Guinea is a poor country resettled refugees would not be persecuted there. If it doesn't work out in Papua New Guinea there are a few more countries which would be willing to take in the refugees in exchange for Australia aid; if a net gain (financially-speaking) is generated by sending them to neighbouring countries I don't see why Australia shouldn't embrace that option. Australia is not the only place that can provide a safe home for these people away from the violence of their homelands.

2. k - so here is something saying the UN said nope: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/u ... um/4845628
here is an actual document: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

1. The UN said it was concerned with the conditions in Papua New Guinea; it did not challenge the legality of Australia's policy on immigration.
2. After examining the text of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 I've determined the article below is the most important to our discussion. As you can see, sending the refugees to a place where they would be persecuted is illegal but it is not illegal to resettle them elsewhere; as long as Australia gives them somewhere to go it is not violating international law.
   

   Article 33
   prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)
   
   1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
   manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
   would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
   of a particular social group or political opinion.
   
   2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
   a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
   the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
   a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
   community of that country.

   
   

   3. http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/CO-59 and above

3. I don't see how statistics showing 1/4 of the Australian population is foreign-born serves to challenge the legality of the government's policy on immigration.
   

   next
   1.k
   2. Well here's a newsflash; we're not in the stone age anymore and, here we go, morality and ethics has expanded past the stone age.

4. Okay.
5. But I wasn't arguing for the morality and ethics of issue; I just said it was natural to fear foreign things and foreign cultures with a vocal minority fond of embracing terrorism is certainly a foreign thing to Australia and its population.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Australians: Very hot.
Australia: Too hot.
This has been a struggle for my entire life.

[Mostrov]

That people are born overseas is not in fact a good thing.
How much water is actually in this country?
I guess we should just keep on growing.

1. repatriation would involve taking a refugee to somewhere to where they are at risk of death. Nope not okay. PNG is not exactly a shining place where it's all fun and games; they came to get to Australia.
2. k - so here is something saying the UN said nope: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/u ... um/4845628
here is an actual document: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html\

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... l-position

Its not illegal what they are doing with resettlement, it is to return them to the country they originated from or one which does put them at risk due to the same factors that caused their status as a refugee in he first place. What is, is the policy of mandatory detention - something Abbott didn't institute and neither Labor Prime Ministers repealed.

Similarly Australian hasn't stopped taking in Refugees, now it does so through offshore processing which prevents people from going by boat (a dangerous and risky thing) and stops people smuggling. These are primarily set up in Indonesia.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

Australians: Very hot.
Australia: Too hot.
This has been a struggle for my entire life.

Having visited Australia (Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney) I can say the following.

Australian women: Not hot at all.
Australia: A very beautiful country. The weather is similar to that of my country of residence (and very soon country of citizenship) and it wasn't hot or uncomfortable when I visited in the Australian winter.

/generalisations

[Reddogkeno101]

1. repatriation would involve taking a refugee to somewhere to where they are at risk of death. Nope not okay. PNG is not exactly a shining place where it's all fun and games; they came to get to Australia.

You said Australia shouldn't deport economic immigrants. While Papua New Guinea is a poor country resettled refugees would not be persecuted there. If it doesn't work out in Papua New Guinea there are a few more countries which would be willing to take in the refugees in exchange for Australia aid; if a net gain (financially-speaking) is generated by sending them to neighbouring countries I don't see why Australia shouldn't embrace that option. Australia is not the only place that can provide a safe home for these people away from the violence of their homelands.

2. k - so here is something saying the UN said nope: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/u ... um/4845628
here is an actual document: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

1. The UN said it was concerned with the conditions in Papua New Guinea; it did not challenge the legality of Australia's policy on immigration.
2. After examining the text of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 I've determined the article below is the most important to our discussion. As you can see, sending the refugees to a place where they would be persecuted is illegal but it is not illegal to resettle them elsewhere; as long as Australia gives them somewhere to go it is not violating international law.
   

   Article 33
   prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)
   
   1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
   manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
   would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
   of a particular social group or political opinion.
   
   2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
   a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
   the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
   a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
   community of that country.

   
   

   3. http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/CO-59 and above

3. I don't see how statistics showing 1/4 of the Australian population is foreign-born serves to challenge the legality of the government's policy on immigration.
   

   next
   1.k
   2. Well here's a newsflash; we're not in the stone age anymore and, here we go, morality and ethics has expanded past the stone age.

4. Okay.
5. But I wasn't arguing for the morality and ethics of issue; I just said it was natural to fear foreign things and foreign cultures with a vocal minority fond of embracing terrorism is certainly a foreign thing to Australia and its population.

I said they should. They wanted to come to Australia and we shouldn't detain them and take them elsewhere if they want to come here and they are refugees. We don't take enough for what we can take.

1.Notice the mention of the headline and this: "The United Nations refugee agency has warned Australia that its decision to send asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea could breach international law and its human rights obligations."
2. Yep, which means we can't take them back to wherever they came from. They would be persecuted in PNG on account of race and religion.
3. It was to address your point on evidence for stuff. I thought you wanted it.

4. kk
5. Yeah-nah. There's no real difference.

Australians: Very hot.
Australia: Too hot.
This has been a struggle for my entire life.

Well that's a nice compliment, thanks