Boat Discussion | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Boat Discussion

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
poppa x said:
...........
The plane took off but was denied entry to Indonesian Air Space.
The media then took over the "spin" saying we failed to rescue them, even though some survivors SWAM back to shore.

..............

I just watched the program thanks poppa. There are a couple of things I don't get from your post. How do we know the plane was denied entry to Indonesian air space? Did our government announce that despite the media black ban on the topic? How far out was the boat when the call was made?

All in all I don't see the need for a blame game. I'd rather know what we are actually doing to try and save/improve the plight of these poor suffering people. Are we turning boats back for their own good or are we doing it to wash our hands of the problem? It's well and good to make docos featuring the suffering. It makes riveting viewing and provides us with an insight, albeit a one sided one, of conditions most of us probably couldn't even imagine. I wonder if we are actually doing anything to improve their lives though. If we were genuine about stopping the boats for the people's own safety surely we'd find a way to assist them in their quest for a better life. There are safer methods of travel as options. If our concern is to stop smugglers why can't we end the need for them by assisting with safe shipping and air travel rather than boast about turning boats back and covering up when we fail.

Sad.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,182
15,099
Good luck to Tony Abbott trying to get cooperation on this issue from the Indonesians after the news that we were actively spying on SBY and his missus through their phones.

Bad luck for asylum seekers caught between two governments desperately posturing to their domestic constituents.
 

poppa x

Tiger Legend
May 28, 2004
5,552
0
Mt Waverley
I just watched the program thanks poppa. There are a couple of things I don't get from your post. How do we know the plane was denied entry to Indonesian air space? Did our government announce that despite the media black ban on the topic? How far out was the boat when the call was made?

My answer would be that 4 Corners said this was the case, and I assume their journalistic standards would not allow them to make this claim without doing their research and getting it vetted by their legal department.
But the ABC has been wrong in the past. So who knows?
On your second point, there is no media black ban. There may be a government policy of not commenting but as far as I know the media can report whatever they want.
Your third point - how far out was the boat. I don't know, but clearly a plane can get there faster to find them.
 
Jul 26, 2004
78,707
39,721
www.redbubble.com
Scott Morrison's secrecy would be funny if it wasn't so serious
MALCOLM FARR
news.com.au
November 20, 2013 10:14AM

IF the Government's determination to block information on asylum seeker policy hasn't reached a peak of absurdity it is must surely be just short stroll from that summit.
We now see Immigration Minister Scott Morrison refusing to confirm information released by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

Last Friday The Australian reported the buy-the-boats program announced by the Coalition before the election had been dropped. This was the plan to purchase Indonesian fishing vessels to prevent them being used to carry asylum seekers.

"At this stage, that's not a measure the Indonesian government wants to see as part of those co-operative activities, and we respect that," Mr Morrison was quoted as saying in the report, which he has not challenged.

It was clear the Indonesian ministers were not impressed back on October 1 when Prime Minister Tony Abbott visited them. They did not want Australian officials clomping around their villages buying boats and offering bounties for dobbing in people smugglers, and that the $20 million scheme would be gutted.

But it had not been confirmed by minister Morrison. He did last Friday, but seems determined not to do so again, no matter the absurdity.

He was asked about the fate of the scheme by Labor during Question Time on Monday and Tuesday and dodged a direct answer. He probably will be asked again today.

"The Government will not be supporting the Opposition's campaign for the people smugglers' right to know. That is not something we are going to engage in," Mr Morrison said in one reply on Tuesday.

So Scott Morrison was upset with the person who had blabbed about the dumping of the boat buyback plan. That is, with Scott Morrison. And he was not going to confirm or deny to Parliament any loose talk by anyone, including Scott Morrison.

This was just silly. Mr Morrison looked even sillier when on Tuesday night his three star general in charge of Operation Sovereign Borders, Angus Campbell, told all to a Senate committee.

"All those measures remain available at this stage. But [the buy back policy] isn't one that the Indonesian government wishes to see applied right now as part of our co-operative activities, which we respect," said Gen Campbell, almost word-for-word what Scott Morrison told a newspaper reporter but would not tell the Parliament.

The Abbott government has attempted to chloroform the dispersal of information on many fronts, but no where as vigorously as on asylum seeker policy, which it has dressed up as some sort of martial law, right-to-know issue.

But this pantomime of Scott Morrison refusing to confirm what he himself has said points more at a stubborn arrogance than careful management of information.

http://www.news.com.au/opinion/scott-morrisons-secrecy-would-be-funny-if-it-wasnt-so-serious/story-fnh4jt54-1226764171999

Geez even News Limited are seeing this for what it is. An absolute joke.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
Tigers of Old said:
Scott Morrison's secrecy would be funny if it wasn't so serious
...
We now see Immigration Minister Scott Morrison refusing to confirm information released by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

....

:hihi :hihi

That reads like a transcript of a Monty Python sketch.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,886
12,154
can anyone clarify if Sri Lankans are coming to Australia directly by boat seeking asylum? or are they all going thru Indonesia?
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,179
19,054
can't clarify but I would be amazed if they were in boats that could travel that journey in one go.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,886
12,154
Baloo said:
can't clarify but I would be amazed if they were in boats that could travel that journey in one go.

they certainly wont be if the Sri Lankan navy uses their fancy new boats to blew them out of the water.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
Brodders17 said:
they certainly wont be if the Sri Lankan navy uses their fancy new boats to blew them out of the water.

Very funny Baloo. :hihi
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,182
15,099
Brodders17 said:
can anyone clarify if Sri Lankans are coming to Australia directly by boat seeking asylum? or are they all going thru Indonesia?

No, they'd likely cross by land through Asia and then down through South East Asia - that's how I'd do it.
 

Michael

Tiger Champion
Nov 30, 2004
4,375
53
Brodders17 said:
can anyone clarify if Sri Lankans are coming to Australia directly by boat seeking asylum? or are they all going thru Indonesia?

Yep. Sri Lanka is an island, so they leave by boat. Bloody close to India, so a lot of Aghan asylum seekers travel through Sri Lanka and as a result Sri Lanka has become a hub for people smuggling. Apparently it takes about 3 weeks. Not sure if the boats sail direct to Australia or if they stop somewhere
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,838
6,771
Aldinga Beach
With a large Tamil population in Southern India I wonder why the Sri Lankan Tamils don't just cross over the Palk Strait. Same ethnicity, same culture and religious beliefs. Wouldn't they assimilate easier? Wouldn't it be a far less perilous journey given the risk to lives, let alone the financial impediment to raising the funds to pay people smugglers?
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,182
15,099
willo said:
With a large Tamil population in Southern India I wonder why the Sri Lankan Tamils don't just cross over the Palk Strait. Same ethnicity, same culture and religious beliefs. Wouldn't they assimilate easier? Wouldn't it be a far less perilous journey given the risk to lives, let alone the financial impediment to raising the funds to pay people smugglers?

They do go there Willo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils_in_India#Refugees
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,838
6,771
Aldinga Beach
antman said:
They do go there Willo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils_in_India#Refugees

Thanks for the link Antman.
Some did. The flow of refugees ceased in 2002.
Why are they now going the "people smuggler route?" Is it because of "economic reasons?" I'm not sure myself. But it seems there is an accepted haven a lot closer with cultural, ethnic and religious ties. Less dangerous to travel as well.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,182
15,099
willo said:
Thanks for the link Antman.
Some did. The flow of refugees ceased in 2002.
Why are they now going the "people smuggler route?"

I think that Wikipedia entry is sadly out of date as the war escalated again culminating in the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. This article refers to another flow up to 2009 for example... http://www.irinnews.org/report/94622/sri-lanka-tamil-refugees-slowly-return-from-india

There are an estimated 100000 Tamil refugees in camps in India. Sri Lankan asylum seekers reaching Australia are a tiny percentage.
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,838
6,771
Aldinga Beach
antman said:
I think that Wikipedia entry is sadly out of date as the war escalated again culminating in the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. This article refers to another flow up to 2009 for example... http://www.irinnews.org/report/94622/sri-lanka-tamil-refugees-slowly-return-from-india

There are an estimated 100000 Tamil refugees in camps in India. Sri Lankan asylum seekers reaching Australia are a tiny percentage.

Well thanks a bunch for the "sadly out of date" link mate. ;D

But it still doesn't answer the question. To risk travelling to Australia is it for "asylum seeking" or for economic reasons do? If it was purely to seek asylum wouldn't it be far easier (given the reasons I listed) to go to India? Or is it more for the *"economics & lifestyle" (* it may be a clumsy term, but I'm sure you get the gist of it).
I do acknowledge that some people in areas of conflict have suffered hardship, I'm not treating that lightly at all.
 

Azza

Tiger Champion
Aug 30, 2007
4,057
0
I have the same unease willo. The fact that numbers dropped off after the PNG solution was started suggests that the people were after more than asylum.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,182
15,099
Of course they were and are.

Now some people think that leaving a war-torn country and living a refugee camp for an indefinite period of time including perhaps for the rest of their lives is fine, but actually most people don't want to settle for that. I know I wouldn't if it were my family.

Does this fact make me "uneasy"? Not really, it's completely understandable human nature. How we manage the small numbers of asylum seekers that come here by boat is different question, but the numbers certainly don't make me "uneasy". On the other hand I do get uneasy about people dying at sea, and I do get uneasy about how we treat asylum seekers from a humanitarian perspective.
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,838
6,771
Aldinga Beach
antman said:
Of course they were and are.

Now some people think that leaving a war-torn country and living a refugee camp for an indefinite period of time including perhaps for the rest of their lives is fine, but actually most people don't want to settle for that. I know I wouldn't if it were my family.

Does this fact make me "uneasy"? Not really, it's completely understandable human nature. How we manage the small numbers of asylum seekers that come here by boat is different question, but the numbers certainly don't make me "uneasy". On the other hand I do get uneasy about people dying at sea, and I do get uneasy about how we treat asylum seekers from a humanitarian perspective.

So does that make them "economic refugees" (Bob Carr's terminology) and not "asylum seekers" then?
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,179
19,054
Asylum seekers. They are escaping persecution in Sri Lanka. The fact some are trying to get to Australia to provide a better and safety life for their family didn't alter the fact they have had to flee their homeland