Endemic persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka an urban myth

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

^

Oh FFS learn how to read.

I put a link to substantiate the numbers. Did I read the data incorrectly? It's the table near the bottom of the page.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

Try reading the context between what David said and what i replied to, then you might have a slight clue (just a slight one) of what was going on.

Fuckingidiot.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

You're smart enough to learn how to understand context in a discussion and not need to jump in swinging haymakers to prove how smart you are.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

I have no interest in playing the games that you make up inside your head from misreading posts. Seriously.

[Mugwump]

Ptid, if increasing numbers of homeless people injure themselves and take horrible risks to come to my door because i hand out soup, i'm not sure how it helps, in practical terms, to put it in the context of national people movements ? Surely the point is that humanitarian aid could be offered in a way that doesn't encourage them to injure themselves, like picking them up from bona-fide refugee camps and transporting them safely and in controlled numbers, while not handing out soup because it is, in practice, a harmful strategy ?

Secondly, I don't think that "global people flow" is a variable that necessarily correlates with needs - eg it may (hypothetically) be to do with the global growth of economic migration, either masquerading as refugee status or legal or "illegal" immigration more generally ?

I've no idea whether 20,000 is a lot in terms of net migration to australia but
I do know that 530 boats,, as an absolute number, is too many probable drownings, and a lot of money passing into the hands of the monsters that trade in people smuggling.

[pietillidie]

[David]

I have to admit the numbers in 2012-2013 were a lot higher than I thought, though obviously still a small fraction of the numbers we're taking in through immigration programs. And Stui, it's worth remembering that the boats haven't actually stopped coming since Abbott's election—while the government's refusal to provide information on these matters means we don't have much of an idea whether the flow has decreased, we do know for certain that the boats are still coming. They're simply being diverted.

While that does mean—because of the dubious policy of linking our general refugee intake with onshore applicants and capping them together—is that, you're right, these are potentially 20,000 (or whatever number would actually get accepted in the end) more applicants that we can source from refugee camps around the world. But that is kind of screwed up reasoning, because it automatically presumes that the people being turned away—the 'queue jumpers'—are, in fact, genuine refugees. Not economic migrants. So, essentially what we're saying to the people who would otherwise be accepted is, yes, you're actual refugees and by international law we're obliged to take you, but we're going to put you in an offshore camp or send you home because we don't like the way in which you're coming. Even though it is, in fact, a legal (albeit dangerous) means of entry.

Take a look at some of the figures in that link and (if I understand the table correctly) you can see how many grant applications were successful as opposed to unsuccessful: around 67%. That means that, after rigorous processing, two thirds of asylum seekers coming by boat who applied for a grant were presumably found to be genuine refugees (as opposed to "economic migrants"). If we are to follow this line of reasoning, that means that there are probably quite likely genuine refugees on those boats possibly being handed back to Sri Lanka by our government, which would be a very grave ethical failing on our part indeed.

As for the official secrecy, I think it's way too glib and uncritical to just accept the government's line on this (that it's to deter people smugglers). Whether or not it actually achieves that aim—and I don't really believe that it does—I still think the people that they're most keen to hide from are us. Eliminate information and you reduce possible dissent, as well as potential for being punished at the polling booths. You've got to realise that, apart from a small minority of hardcore refugee advocates and sympathetic fellow travellers, this will be an out of sight, out of mind issue for most people. How can you disagree with a government action if you don't know what it is? That to me is a basic perversion of the democratic process.

This short Media Watch segment is a great exploration into just how efficient the government has been at hiding information from the Australian people.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4045863.htm

I think this quote gets to the real core of the issue:

[stui magpie]

David I'm not suggesting that all 20,000 would have been genuine, other what you suggest does follows. The point was simply that the number is a reasonably large one, or at least it was during that period.

While the boats have not totally stopped they would on those numbers appear to have significantly reduced. I've read articles suggesting people smugglers have massively discounted their prices to get customers. One thing it does mean is that apart from the reduced number of people at risk of drowning, there is a lot less drain on the system of having to process people with no papers.

Your argument that if 67% of overall applicants were genuine refugees that follows that we're handing back genuine refugees to Sri Lanka is a false premise and you know it. Stats don't work that way.

I'm not going to argue about the secrecy element as we have different views on that and that's not going to change

So basically, if we're able to put up a blank statement saying that coming here by boat will not get you into the country, for mine that allows us to better focus on putting resources into dealing with the refugees who come in via approved channels, which is better for all concerned IMO.

[David]

I just read this and found it a rather thorough, plain-speaking overview of how the government is misleading the public on this issue and why our border protection policy is in breach of international law. I'm a little sceptical of some of the arguments which seem a little simplistic (mainly surrounding the issues of deterrence and the definition of a refugee), but overall there are plenty of good basic facts there that every Australian voter should be aware of.

Edit: link attached.

http://theaimn.com/facts-boat-people-government-media-lying/

[Dr Pie]

The increased intake from 13,000 to 20,000 p.a was when Labor wanted to make offshore processing palatable to its supporters after previously opposing it. Abbott cut the numbers back as soon as he was elected.

Bob Carr was not a good foreign minister and was appointed by Gillard to shore up her support in the NSW Right, which was swinging to Rudd and continued to do so after Carr. in fact Carr showed his gratitude to Gillard by also supporting Rudd. Carr opposes increased migration to New South Wales and his position on refugees is only marginally better than Morrison's. Like Abbott and Morrison he is prepared to lie about the safety of Tamils in Sri Lanka and the human rights abuses of the Sri Lankan Government if the Sri Lankans cooperate with stopping the boats.

On 7.30 tonight Sarah Ferguson asked Abbott if he agreed with his ally and Conservative close mate Stephen Harper on Sri Lanka. Harper boycotted the CHOGM conference in Sri Lanka in protest against the Sri Lankan Government's human rights violations. Abbott obfuscated and blustered and then admitted that he didn't agree with Harper.

The boat of 41 that was returned seemed to be mostly Sinhalese and some may have been economic migrants although research published in the Fairfax press suggests that some were definitely political refugees. However the 153 Tamils currently held on an Australian boat on the high seas appear to be genuine refugees in fear of persecution by the Sri Lankan regime. There is no justification for handing them over to the Sri Lankan Navy. If some of them are subsequently executed or tortured to death than their blood would be on Abbott and Morrison's hands.