 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| On top of corruption! | |
Andrew Theopanous, long time Labour serving Minister and obsessed
pro-immigration activist went down for 3.5 years jail. Not only was he taking bribes in the form of money, he was attempting to take
payment in the form of sexual favors from an Asian woman ('if she was good
looking enough'). This is the same man who continually rallied for the rights of immigrants, and
who took the moral high ground on any issue to do with immigration. He wanted
more immigration - presumably no amount of immigration would have been enough.
Understandable when more immigrants means more opportunity to take bribes from
them, and to use them for sex. This is the man who painted the immigrants as poor desperate and needing
'special treatment'. Clearly he thought they were desperate. Desperate enough to
agree to give sex in return for visas. He was also instrumental in the controversial decision to bring some 20,000
'Bob Hawke Specials' into the country after the Tienanmen Square massacre in
1989. It is time to seriously question Australia's immigration policies. While
the fact that Theopanous is just a common criminal is not in itself enough to
dismiss the views he held, it is enough to look very seriously at those
views, and question our policy frameworks. Much of our immigration policy
framework, including much of our refugee program was set up under the control
of this criminal. It would be criminal to merely accept the current levels as
appropriate without further questioning. Meantime Theopanous may be doing a little questioning of his own in his
prison cell. His wife might be questioning why she is still with him too, and
planning her own escape.
|
|
 |
| Stage Dive! | |
The BBC 2002-05-20 Reports that Amnesty International claims religious
tensions between detainees in Australian detention
centers are leading to persecution and physical assault. Not content to leave their old wars at home, the Christians, Mandeans,
Tamils, Hindus and Islamists are sniping at each other. Christian converts in
particular are facing threats and violence from Islamists, being labeled
'infidels'. Of course this is all part of the game-plan of the Howard government.
Putting all these groups together is a clear demonstration of their
unwillingness to integrate or even to tolerate other cultures or religions. As more and more Australians see the violence
these people initiate against others, the less and less inclined they are to
let them stay. The thought of having this kind of violence perpetrated in one's
town or suburb makes the average Australian nervy. The thought of having the
violence perpetrated against them or their families is a deciding factor. While the ALP waffle on about finding a middle
ground between compassion and pragmatics, the Liberal Party are pursuing their policy of
border control. The average Australian, having gotten over the excitment of seeing the SAS
actually used for something when they boarded the Tampa, is now just settling
back in their lounge-chairs and waiting for the political machine to run its course.
|
|
 |
| Stupidity between the flags | |
Some time ago, a man of sub-normal intelligence swimming at Bondi Beach became a paraplegic after diving into
a sand-bar. He sued the Bondi Council because he was swimming between the life-saving flags. Most of us regard life-saving flags as an indication that
- There are no particularly dangerous rips in between the flags
- There may be a life-saver on duty who will
- assist someone he believes in danger.
- keep an eye out for sharks, and warn people if he sees one.
Apparently be believed that the flags were a guarantee of invulnerability.
There was a sand bar between the flags, and he felt that the flags should not
have been erected on either side of something as dangerous as a sand-bar. Like, hello, wake up and smell the java, man. You are on a beach. That
means that under the water there is sand. Intelligent people don't just dive
head-long into sand - it's dangerous. They test the depth of the water before
diving in. But no, apparently, this guy thinks that the flags were a guarantee of
safety and anything that happens to him is someone else's fault, and they (or
in this case society in the form of the local council) must pay. Unfortunately the council is likely to raise rates (ie taxes) to pay this
person. So people who own houses in the suburb must pay for this person's
stupidity.
|
|
 |
| Fortress or Mattress? | |
We have to address a more fundamental question than 'what about asylum
seekers', namely 'what are our obligations to people in other countries?' If we believe that all people have equal rights to come to Australia, then we
are in favor of an open door policy, and few Australians will agree with us.
Otherwise we believe in limiting entry to Australia. If we believe that there are people who can immigrate to Australia in a
mutually consensual way, AND benefit themselves AND Australians then lets
invite those people. If we are going to do this then I suggest we focus on
who would be most beneficial for us. Otherwise we are giving welfare to foreigners. Lets ask why we give welfare to foreigners. If it is because we feel that property is theft, and we feel bad about being
comparatively rich, and want to allay our consciences by giving money to some
cause with the word 'suffering' in the title, then fine, lets say so.
But if this is the case we may as well just give all the guilt money
to a random refugee and save ourselves the administrative overhead of
trying to make the system look 'fair'. If we wish to actually help people by giving money and maximize the total
utility from it, then fine, lets say so. In this case we want the most people
to get the most benefit from the money. There are refugees in the world in
genuine risk and who are genuinely suffering. Bringing 12000 people per year to
a first world country, and giving them $20,000pa in money and subsidies is
expensive. The same money could be used to significantly help far more than
12000 people near their country of origin. Simply giving $20,000/pa in money and subsidies to people who can afford to
break our laws by employing a peoplesmuggler is one way of helping people.
But it is one of the worst ways there is.
|
|
 |
| More Trendy Eurotrash | |
SMH-2002-05-14 reports:
>> "We don't want to go back to the bad old days when books were taken out of
>> book shops as they were in Victoria in the early 60s or when stage shows
>> were closed down, as they were in Sydney under the Askin government," Bob Carr
>> told reporters.
Once again we have a decision
which attempts to dictate
morality,
to dictate what people see, and by implication what people think. Have we learned
nothing from the discrediting of the totalitarian policies of socialism,
communism,
Nazism, McCarthyism, and
the religious control? When will governments stop trying to be the moral guardians of the public? When
will they understand that it is not their role to dictate the morality, or
thoughts of the public, that they are simply there to stop people initiating
force against others? The answer is quite simple. They will realize this when we, the people,
do. This is a democracy. We get the government we voted for. We get the
government we deserve. Unfortunately when we vote we are obsessed with maximizing our own
rights, and we forget
about those of the people around us, and our choices and freedoms
are whittled away. Most of us don't want to see Eurotrash films like Baise-Moi, so we ignore the fact that
other's right to see it has been taken away. Many of us don't want to take drugs, so we ignore the fact that
other's right to take them has been taken away. Most of us will never own our own business, so we ignore the fact that the rights
of employers to freedom-of-association have been taken away. Most of us will never own an historic building, so we ignore the fact that the rights
of ownership of the people are taken away in the name of 'cultural heritage'. Most of us will never own a television station, so we ignore the fact that the
rights to transmit whatever they want (as long as they pay for the bandwidth) are
taken away. Most of us will never be major shareholders in McDonalds, so we ignore the fact
that ridiculous compensation to a woman for spilling coffee on her lap takes their
rights away. We have ourselves to blame for this because in our selfishness we have forgotten
the fundamental rule: It's your life. Do whatever you like except hurting someone or taking their stuff. Society is not to blame. We are.
|
|
|
| Stage Dive! | |
The DAILY TELEGRAPH 2002-05-13 Reports: The first group of Afghan boat people, stranded in Indonesia for up to
two years when Australia denied them entry as refugees, returned home yesterday
with many swearing undying hatred of Australia.The 36 refugees, the latest of about 500,000 Afghans returning home from all
over the world, sang Indonesia's praises for their hospitality but denounced
Australia as uncaring and a nation that abused human rights and humiliated
asylum-seekers.
Sounds like those asylum seekers had a lucky escape! If they had made it to Australia
they would have been forced to live amongst the very people who were uncaring and
abused human rights - people, who in their own words they 'hated'. It's funny that, even though they claim to be genuine refugees (and
therefore face persecution on their return home), they are
choosing to return to Afghanistan rather than trying to stay in other Muslim
'hospitable' countries such as Indonesia. Given a choice between living with people they hate, living with people who are 'hospitable',
they choose to try to live amongst those they hate. Given a choice of living with those who are 'hospitable' and going home to face persecution, they choose to go home to face persecution. Funny people these Afghans. I guess now they can GO HOME AND TELL A FRIEND: NO VISA!
|
|
 |
| It goes where? | |
Dear Koffe, Thanks for all your help and encouragement since last September when
someone broke in and trashed our place! We were pretty cut - especially when we found out that it was Osama! We
went around to sort the situation out, but we found out that Osama is a guest
in Omar's house. We demanded to see Osama, but Omar refused. We knew that it
was not actually Omar's house anyway, because it was stolen, and the rightful
occupants were being horribly abused. So we got together with old Tony, little Gilles and even little Johnny came
along to provide encouragement. Together we kicked the living daylights out of
Osama (though he is a slippery character), and forced Omar out (as best they
could anyway). It was a good opportunity to practice some of those new Kung Fu
moves. Then we gave house back to its rightful owners (as best we could anyway,
because the situation was a bit confused). We're getting really sick of people stealing houses. The whole street's
looking like a slum. So now we're looking around at other people who have
stolen their houses. Big Zemin is a bit of an pain but none of us want to pick a fight with him, and
he keeps pretty much to himself - except that when my kid's toy airplane flew
into his back yard by accident he did make a bit of fuss. He didn't have to
cut it up before throwing it back over the fence. We are also concerned about Kim, Ali and Saddam. Saddam has been a really big pain in the ass. He's been building stink bombs in his
back yard again, too. We tried to sort the situation out a few years back, but
he just ran back into his house and poked his tongue out at us from the
window. We didn't want to go inside, so we just broke some of his toys, and
told him not to throw things in his neighbor's yard. Unfortunately that whole area of the street is a mess at the moment. Yasser and
Ariel can't agree on where to build their adjoining back fence, and they have
been kicking dirt in each other's faces. To top it all off Ariel has been building sand castles
in Yasser's back yard, and Yasser is getting really pissed. We'd rather not go in there until things calm down a bit. Everyone is behaving like children! Can you offer us any advice? Sincerely, George. PS: We still owe you for the jam and tarts from the last barbecue. We'll settle up real soon.
|
|
 |
| That was some party! | |
Some of Australia's less welcome guests threw a party in Curtin detention center.
SMH-2002-04-22 reports that knives and meat-cleavers were used as part of
the festivities.
"Well it gets boring in here with nothing to do" complained one of the inmates.
"And we only lit the fire because it was cold".
"We thought we would show these cynical Australians how we can kick up our
heels and have a good time - just like we do at home". The refugee action groups were confident that once Australians realized
that people from the Middle East were just like Australians that they would
agree to open Australia's borders. "We have a lot to offer Australia" one said
"Australia could be like bonfire night every night of the year". Immigration authorities admitted that the situation was a stand-off.
"We're not coming to the party unless we are invited!" they insisted.
"It looks like a lot of fun, We don't believe in gate-crashing where we
are not wanted". Local Aboriginal groups refused to comment.
|
|
 |
| A new form of illegal re-entry? | |
SMH-2001-04-16 reports that the Russian space port planned for Christmas Island
is in jeopardy since Australia announced plans to build a permanent detention center
on the island. Apparently the Russians are concerned about their security implications
of being close to a the detention center.
Clearly, releasing the Asylum Seekers into the Australian community is the
preferred safer option for the Russians. They would feel safer if they were
separated from the Asylum seekers by 1000 miles of ocean. Funny thing is - most Australians feel the same way!
|
|
 |
| You can choose your friends, but.. | |
Multiculturalism is not yet a dead issue. Not content to battle over turf in the Middle East, local Muslims say they
are being pushed out of the Sydney Rookwood cemetary by Jews and Christians. SMH-2001-04-16 reports that the Muslim section of the cemetary is nearly
full, and no advance bookings are being accepted. The Jewish section on the
other hand has 15 years capacity, and neither side is volunteering to mix the
graves together. The secretary of the Muslim Cemetery Trust, Wasim Raza, is quoted as saying
"The point is that like many peoples of faith, Muslims would like to be buried
in a dedicated area, not all over the place amongst people of different
faiths."
Apparently the muslim community's commitment to multiculturalism doesn't
extend to being buried alongside the infidels, and cremation is specifically
banned by the Koran. Maybe Allah makes an exception if you are flying a
767, or wearing a TNT suit in an Israeli cafe.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
