So in case there was any doubt that our treatment of refugees is pure evil, a UN report affirms that our treatment of refugees is, in fact, pure evil. Turns out, if you place a large number of people into concentration camps against their will, it counts as torture and leads to escalating violence! Who'd have guessed?
Australians are "sick of being lectured to by the United Nations", Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said after a report found Australia's treatment of asylum seekers breaches an international anti-torture convention.
So in case there was any doubt that our treatment of refugees is pure evil, a UN report affirms that our treatment of refugees is, in fact, pure evil. Turns out, if you place a large number of people into concentration camps against their will, it counts as torture and leads to escalating violence! Who'd have guessed?
Australians are "sick of being lectured to by the United Nations", Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said after a report found Australia's treatment of asylum seekers breaches an international anti-torture convention.
Kindly fuck off Abbott, you gigantic goose.
I like he claims this is the overall public opinion without any evidence, and not that we're actually sick of him and his government. Also that coming by boat is "illegal."
So in case there was any doubt that our treatment of refugees is pure evil, a UN report affirms that our treatment of refugees is, in fact, pure evil. Turns out, if you place a large number of people into concentration camps against their will, it counts as torture and leads to escalating violence! Who'd have guessed?
Australians are "sick of being lectured to by the United Nations", Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said after a report found Australia's treatment of asylum seekers breaches an international anti-torture convention.
Kindly fuck off Abbott, you gigantic goose.
I like he claims this is the overall public opinion without any evidence, and not that we're actually sick of him and his government. Also that coming by boat is "illegal."
I've got people on both sides of mine and my fiancees family that came here, by boat, in the 60's. I've also explained the difference to them between immigration and seeking asylum.
Abbotts done some real magic with public perception, because everyone still thinks that seeking asylum is 'illegal immigration'.
Now when they get going about boat people (like the hilarious 'MH370 was caused by boat people'), I simply ignore them and smile. It's not worth the arguments.
International maratime and aviation standards agree: boats and planes in transit should not be at the same altitude. If a refugee boat collided with a plane, then it should have been at a lower altitude.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Don't worry. Come next election they'll be out of Government.
...and then back again the election afterwards, because people either hate the new government or choose to forget how bad the Liberals are.
Turnbull or Bishop will oust Abbott before the next election, and Australians will forget that the Liberal Party wants this bullshit, they're just usually better at hiding the fact.
The Liberals deserve ruin as a party for good. Instead they'll be rewarded thanks to gullible voters and the opposition being lead by a propped up piece of cardboard.
Don't worry. Come next election they'll be out of Government.
...and then back again the election afterwards, because people either hate the new government or choose to forget how bad the Liberals are.
Turnbull or Bishop will oust Abbott before the next election, and Australians will forget that the Liberal Party wants this bullshit, they're just usually better at hiding the fact.
The Liberals deserve ruin as a party for good. Instead they'll be rewarded thanks to gullible voters and the opposition being lead by a propped up piece of cardboard.
They're in a position where they're damned if they oust him or keep him before the election.
If they oust him before, they'll be called on their hypocrisy and look even less credible and will lose more votes.
If they keep him they lose period.
Granted, in the first scenario they at least have a chance, but it all depends on whether the public will buy the Government's BS leading up to the election.
Oh who am I kidding, they already did last time so they'll probably do the same again. :sad:
Thousands of goodwill letters sent by Australians to immigration detainees held on Nauru have been returned unopened.
The letters of comfort and support were organised by the Melbourne barrister Julian Burnside. He did the same in 2001 after asylum seekers on the Tampa were detained for long periods.
Last year, with the support of advocacy and social justice groups, he organised for almost 2,000 letters from Australians to be sent to detainees on Nauru. A similar number were sent to people at the processing centre on Manus Island.
The letters were directed to people whose identity and boat number are known to Burnside. Each letter contained a self-addressed stamped envelope so the detainees could reply to the sender if they wished.
The letters were designed to let the detainees know that Australians were thinking of them, that they were not alone and that not everyone is hostile to refugees.
By the middle of last year it was apparent that the letter writers had not received any replies from Nauru.
Burnside followed up with an email inquiry to Nikki Keirven, then the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s lead service delivery officer at the Nauru offshore processing centre. On 25 June 2014 she replied:
Advertisement
“Thank you for your email. I appreciate you have an interest in knowing whether the letters you have been sending are arriving in Nauru.
“I can confirm that they are arriving and are being distributed to transferees by the service provider [Transfield Services]. This is a work in progress given that letters continue to arrive.
There are also a number of letters which have arrived for transferees who have departed Nauru. Where forwarding addresses are available, they will be forwarded on.”
However, replies from detainees were still not being received. This was considered unusual, as in the past asylum seekers had been responsive to messages of support.
What followed was months of email correspondence between Burnside and the department. It emerged that the Nauruan postal authorities would only accept the self-addressed envelopes if the Australian stamps had been purchased in Nauru.
Burnside continued to press for information about what had happened to the letters. On 11 August he wrote:
“I am disappointed not to have received a reply. You probably do not need to be reminded that it is a serious offence to interfere with mail. People held on Nauru have written letters in response to letters from members of the Australian public. Those replies are not being sent out. You are aware of the blockage. I have offered to put them in the Australian postal system if the reply letters are returned to me in bulk: they all have Australian postage stamps on them.”
There was no response. Two days later, he inquired again of Kierven: “Where are the letters?”
On 22 December Burnside received three large boxes from the department. They contained all but nine of the letters posted to asylum seekers. The letters were unopened and marked “Return to sender”.
Burnside wants to know why he was told by the department in June that the letters “are arriving and are being distributed” when this was not the case.
He has now also started receiving letters which had been sent to Manus marked “Return to sender”.
Transfield Services has responsibility for the mail deliveries to and from the regional processing centres and is investigating what happened to the letters.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which has overall responsibility for the conduct of the processing centres, did not respond to an inquiry from Guardian Australia.
Thousands of goodwill letters sent by Australians to immigration detainees held on Nauru have been returned unopened.
The letters of comfort and support were organised by the Melbourne barrister Julian Burnside. He did the same in 2001 after asylum seekers on the Tampa were detained for long periods.
Last year, with the support of advocacy and social justice groups, he organised for almost 2,000 letters from Australians to be sent to detainees on Nauru. A similar number were sent to people at the processing centre on Manus Island.
The letters were directed to people whose identity and boat number are known to Burnside. Each letter contained a self-addressed stamped envelope so the detainees could reply to the sender if they wished.
The letters were designed to let the detainees know that Australians were thinking of them, that they were not alone and that not everyone is hostile to refugees.
By the middle of last year it was apparent that the letter writers had not received any replies from Nauru.
Burnside followed up with an email inquiry to Nikki Keirven, then the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s lead service delivery officer at the Nauru offshore processing centre. On 25 June 2014 she replied:
Advertisement
“Thank you for your email. I appreciate you have an interest in knowing whether the letters you have been sending are arriving in Nauru.
“I can confirm that they are arriving and are being distributed to transferees by the service provider [Transfield Services]. This is a work in progress given that letters continue to arrive.
There are also a number of letters which have arrived for transferees who have departed Nauru. Where forwarding addresses are available, they will be forwarded on.”
However, replies from detainees were still not being received. This was considered unusual, as in the past asylum seekers had been responsive to messages of support.
What followed was months of email correspondence between Burnside and the department. It emerged that the Nauruan postal authorities would only accept the self-addressed envelopes if the Australian stamps had been purchased in Nauru.
Burnside continued to press for information about what had happened to the letters. On 11 August he wrote:
“I am disappointed not to have received a reply. You probably do not need to be reminded that it is a serious offence to interfere with mail. People held on Nauru have written letters in response to letters from members of the Australian public. Those replies are not being sent out. You are aware of the blockage. I have offered to put them in the Australian postal system if the reply letters are returned to me in bulk: they all have Australian postage stamps on them.”
There was no response. Two days later, he inquired again of Kierven: “Where are the letters?”
On 22 December Burnside received three large boxes from the department. They contained all but nine of the letters posted to asylum seekers. The letters were unopened and marked “Return to sender”.
Burnside wants to know why he was told by the department in June that the letters “are arriving and are being distributed” when this was not the case.
He has now also started receiving letters which had been sent to Manus marked “Return to sender”.
Transfield Services has responsibility for the mail deliveries to and from the regional processing centres and is investigating what happened to the letters.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which has overall responsibility for the conduct of the processing centres, did not respond to an inquiry from Guardian Australia.
I know I am just a yank outsider. But am I the only person who would find it hilarious if multiple people involved in the detention clusterfuck went to prison over interference with the postal service?
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
Thousands of goodwill letters sent by Australians to immigration detainees held on Nauru have been returned unopened.
The letters of comfort and support were organised by the Melbourne barrister Julian Burnside. He did the same in 2001 after asylum seekers on the Tampa were detained for long periods.
Last year, with the support of advocacy and social justice groups, he organised for almost 2,000 letters from Australians to be sent to detainees on Nauru. A similar number were sent to people at the processing centre on Manus Island.
The letters were directed to people whose identity and boat number are known to Burnside. Each letter contained a self-addressed stamped envelope so the detainees could reply to the sender if they wished.
The letters were designed to let the detainees know that Australians were thinking of them, that they were not alone and that not everyone is hostile to refugees.
By the middle of last year it was apparent that the letter writers had not received any replies from Nauru.
Burnside followed up with an email inquiry to Nikki Keirven, then the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s lead service delivery officer at the Nauru offshore processing centre. On 25 June 2014 she replied:
Advertisement
“Thank you for your email. I appreciate you have an interest in knowing whether the letters you have been sending are arriving in Nauru.
“I can confirm that they are arriving and are being distributed to transferees by the service provider [Transfield Services]. This is a work in progress given that letters continue to arrive.
There are also a number of letters which have arrived for transferees who have departed Nauru. Where forwarding addresses are available, they will be forwarded on.”
However, replies from detainees were still not being received. This was considered unusual, as in the past asylum seekers had been responsive to messages of support.
What followed was months of email correspondence between Burnside and the department. It emerged that the Nauruan postal authorities would only accept the self-addressed envelopes if the Australian stamps had been purchased in Nauru.
Burnside continued to press for information about what had happened to the letters. On 11 August he wrote:
“I am disappointed not to have received a reply. You probably do not need to be reminded that it is a serious offence to interfere with mail. People held on Nauru have written letters in response to letters from members of the Australian public. Those replies are not being sent out. You are aware of the blockage. I have offered to put them in the Australian postal system if the reply letters are returned to me in bulk: they all have Australian postage stamps on them.”
There was no response. Two days later, he inquired again of Kierven: “Where are the letters?”
On 22 December Burnside received three large boxes from the department. They contained all but nine of the letters posted to asylum seekers. The letters were unopened and marked “Return to sender”.
Burnside wants to know why he was told by the department in June that the letters “are arriving and are being distributed” when this was not the case.
He has now also started receiving letters which had been sent to Manus marked “Return to sender”.
Transfield Services has responsibility for the mail deliveries to and from the regional processing centres and is investigating what happened to the letters.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which has overall responsibility for the conduct of the processing centres, did not respond to an inquiry from Guardian Australia.
I know I am just a yank outsider. But am I the only person who would find it hilarious if multiple people involved in the detention clusterfuck went to prison over interference with the postal service?
I think we can safely say that it would be our dearest dream.
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
Oh my god GET FUCKED TONY YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Assimilate or die, basically. Move to a city (and abandon basically your entire culture as nomadic tribespeople), or we won't provide you any of the social services a government is supposed to?
+6
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
See, my Mum has always said that Abbott isn't so bad since he takes time every year to go and volunteer at indigenous communities.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
Oh my god GET FUCKED TONY YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Assimilate or die, basically. Move to a city (and abandon basically your entire culture as nomadic tribespeople), or we won't provide you any of the social services a government is supposed to?
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
Does that mean we can stop paying for Kirribilli ?
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
This latest thing regarding remote Aboriginal communities and the human right offences going on under our watch have got me so intensely angry and despairing.
I just can't stop thinking about all the horrible things we are doing to people in the name of "stopping the boats" and "saving money".
I haven't felt this powerless and angry since I was back in school getting bullied all the time.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
This is another of those bit of received wisdom passing by unquestioned that I cannot understand.
Can someone explain to me how the area one lives in (beyond their immediate childhood, to some extent) is not a lifestyle choice? And why it's offensive to suggest that it is? I'm just not seeing it.
I don't want anyone to pretend this is binary off/on (I'm certainly not) - but there is a continuum of locations in which it is reasonable to expect the government to provide you with certain services. The further out from population centres you get, the less reasonable it is for you to expect to receive these services without provision of something productive in return. I find it difficult to fathom that there are so many people that evidently do not consider this to be the case.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
This is another of those bit of received wisdom passing by unquestioned that I cannot understand.
Can someone explain to me how the area one lives in (beyond their immediate childhood, to some extent) is not a lifestyle choice? And why it's offensive to suggest that it is? I'm just not seeing it.
I don't want anyone to pretend this is binary off/on (I'm certainly not) - but there is a continuum of locations in which it is reasonable to expect the government to provide you with certain services. The further out from population centres you get, the less reasonable it is for you to expect to receive these services without provision of something productive in return. I find it difficult to fathom that there are so many people that evidently do not consider this to be the case.
Don't look into the abyss, you risk the abyss looking into you.
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has backed a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer's job to subsidise people's "lifestyle choices".
The WA Government flagged the closure of up to 150 of the state's remote Aboriginal communities after the Federal Government, which funded about two-thirds of the state's remote Indigenous settlements, announced in September it was transitioning that responsibility to the states over the next two years.
Speaking in Kalgoorlie, Mr Abbott said it was up to the state to decide what services it would deliver and where.
He said the decision to close communities was not unreasonable if the cost of providing services, where there are no schools or jobs, was excessive.
"What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have," he said.
This is another of those bit of received wisdom passing by unquestioned that I cannot understand.
Can someone explain to me how the area one lives in (beyond their immediate childhood, to some extent) is not a lifestyle choice? And why it's offensive to suggest that it is? I'm just not seeing it.
I don't want anyone to pretend this is binary off/on (I'm certainly not) - but there is a continuum of locations in which it is reasonable to expect the government to provide you with certain services. The further out from population centres you get, the less reasonable it is for you to expect to receive these services without provision of something productive in return. I find it difficult to fathom that there are so many people that evidently do not consider this to be the case.
Except that in this case there are many many remote communities that exist as a function of Aboriginal nomadic culture. Telling them to "move to the city or go without" is tantamount to saying "yo fuck your culture, we can't be bothered".
And considering the money we are spending on torturing boat people, and the many billions (with a we are giving to the richest handful of people in the country, trying to make it about reducing costs is a dirty pathetic fucking joke.
Also, on the 'torturing boat people' thing. Again, I feel the need to preface my statement by noting that I am a very strong opponent and indeed have agitated against both Labor and the Liberal's offshore detention policies. But given my current proximity to the Human Rights Council meetings I decided to actually have a look at the report that's garnered so many lines of newsprint, and the content is nothing like what the media had led me to believe it would be.
EDIT: I guess that's not a comment on Australian politics, but the media. And not unsurprising at that. But perhaps a warning to have a look at the report before making certain sweeping statements about that report and UN positions.
Double edit: Not targeted at chrishallett83, just a general comment.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
The trick is the "lifestyle choice" is imposed by a stronger culture.
Given that we took their country away from them in the first place.
It makes it a moral problem, first and foremost. Economics takes a back seat to morals, otherwise, just let the next man who wants your stuff who is stronger than you take it.
He basically said "Come be part of the white mans culture you silly indigenous peoples. Or else."
He just dressed it up in economic terms.
Fundamental to your understanding of the majority of this board? Coming to grips with a belief set that does not have economics be the most important function or arm of government. It's one part of a functioning society, and if it comes a cropper with a moral problem, it backs down first.
Does that make more sense?
It's an ethical objection.
Everybody understands the economic argument.
They just think its crappy and inhumane.
And, might I add, this is coming from a man who continuously makes pathetic schoolyard level moral trash talk to anyone who disagrees with him in any way. Nobody believes he understands any morality at all. His actions are all the proof we need to conclude that he is a moral idiot.
Hence, utter contempt.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Kinda hard to explain what its like to have your culture actively destroyed when you belong to a group that is actively doing the destroying
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
+4
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
Oh and there's also the whole lifestyle choices only make sense when people have the money to make those choices.
It's easy to call something a life style choice when you have the option to do something.
It's a bit harder when you are broke as fuck and couldn't leave a town without walking on your own feet hundreds of miles in the australian outback.
Sweeping obvious socioeconomic concerns aside and using a trite, shallow, fundamentally unfair phrase like "choice" when it fucking isn't and they have no choice at all, to justify a heartless economic policy.
Well you get what I like to call an argument so fucked up you just ignore the whole thing because its too stupid to deal with that level of inanity. Recursive contradictions all the way down.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
If it's in the form of a light rail link, I'll take it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
We have a response. Kindly fuck off Abbott, you gigantic goose.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Widening single lane bridges over Northland to be two laned
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
I've got people on both sides of mine and my fiancees family that came here, by boat, in the 60's. I've also explained the difference to them between immigration and seeking asylum.
Abbotts done some real magic with public perception, because everyone still thinks that seeking asylum is 'illegal immigration'.
Now when they get going about boat people (like the hilarious 'MH370 was caused by boat people'), I simply ignore them and smile. It's not worth the arguments.
Wow.
Please shoot me a PM if you add me so I know to add you back.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Insane this is a thing that exists
Because they fucking elected them ugh.
Please shoot me a PM if you add me so I know to add you back.
...and then back again the election afterwards, because people either hate the new government or choose to forget how bad the Liberals are.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Turnbull or Bishop will oust Abbott before the next election, and Australians will forget that the Liberal Party wants this bullshit, they're just usually better at hiding the fact.
The Liberals deserve ruin as a party for good. Instead they'll be rewarded thanks to gullible voters and the opposition being lead by a propped up piece of cardboard.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Apparently they hijacked it to arrive not by boat.
Like I said, I don't say anything anymore.
If they oust him before, they'll be called on their hypocrisy and look even less credible and will lose more votes.
If they keep him they lose period.
Granted, in the first scenario they at least have a chance, but it all depends on whether the public will buy the Government's BS leading up to the election.
Oh who am I kidding, they already did last time so they'll probably do the same again. :sad:
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Why hold these back unless you're purposely trying to be a fucking monster?
I know I am just a yank outsider. But am I the only person who would find it hilarious if multiple people involved in the detention clusterfuck went to prison over interference with the postal service?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-10/pm-backs-decision-to-close-wa-indigenous-communities/6295296?utm_content=buffer30136&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I think we can safely say that it would be our dearest dream.
Oh my god GET FUCKED TONY YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Assimilate or die, basically. Move to a city (and abandon basically your entire culture as nomadic tribespeople), or we won't provide you any of the social services a government is supposed to?
Gotta tell her about this one.
I think that actually qualifies as genocide...
Does that mean we can stop paying for Kirribilli ?
I just can't stop thinking about all the horrible things we are doing to people in the name of "stopping the boats" and "saving money".
I haven't felt this powerless and angry since I was back in school getting bullied all the time.
This is another of those bit of received wisdom passing by unquestioned that I cannot understand.
Can someone explain to me how the area one lives in (beyond their immediate childhood, to some extent) is not a lifestyle choice? And why it's offensive to suggest that it is? I'm just not seeing it.
I don't want anyone to pretend this is binary off/on (I'm certainly not) - but there is a continuum of locations in which it is reasonable to expect the government to provide you with certain services. The further out from population centres you get, the less reasonable it is for you to expect to receive these services without provision of something productive in return. I find it difficult to fathom that there are so many people that evidently do not consider this to be the case.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Don't look into the abyss, you risk the abyss looking into you.
Except that in this case there are many many remote communities that exist as a function of Aboriginal nomadic culture. Telling them to "move to the city or go without" is tantamount to saying "yo fuck your culture, we can't be bothered".
And considering the money we are spending on torturing boat people, and the many billions (with a
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
EDIT: I guess that's not a comment on Australian politics, but the media. And not unsurprising at that. But perhaps a warning to have a look at the report before making certain sweeping statements about that report and UN positions.
Double edit: Not targeted at chrishallett83, just a general comment.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Given that we took their country away from them in the first place.
It makes it a moral problem, first and foremost. Economics takes a back seat to morals, otherwise, just let the next man who wants your stuff who is stronger than you take it.
He basically said "Come be part of the white mans culture you silly indigenous peoples. Or else."
He just dressed it up in economic terms.
Fundamental to your understanding of the majority of this board? Coming to grips with a belief set that does not have economics be the most important function or arm of government. It's one part of a functioning society, and if it comes a cropper with a moral problem, it backs down first.
Does that make more sense?
It's an ethical objection.
Everybody understands the economic argument.
They just think its crappy and inhumane.
And, might I add, this is coming from a man who continuously makes pathetic schoolyard level moral trash talk to anyone who disagrees with him in any way. Nobody believes he understands any morality at all. His actions are all the proof we need to conclude that he is a moral idiot.
Hence, utter contempt.
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
It's easy to call something a life style choice when you have the option to do something.
It's a bit harder when you are broke as fuck and couldn't leave a town without walking on your own feet hundreds of miles in the australian outback.
Sweeping obvious socioeconomic concerns aside and using a trite, shallow, fundamentally unfair phrase like "choice" when it fucking isn't and they have no choice at all, to justify a heartless economic policy.
Well you get what I like to call an argument so fucked up you just ignore the whole thing because its too stupid to deal with that level of inanity. Recursive contradictions all the way down.
Emphatically no.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
In unsurprising news...