 |
| Milad Jafari - Pic Courtesy Catholic Leader |
There's plenty happening around the asylum seeker situation
at the moment to warrant a post on the subject.
As usual, most of it can only be
categorised as shameful.
First, there's the revelation that Save the Children workers
were booted from a detention centre on a lie. This, of course, is hardly surprising given the government's sensitivity to criticism, but
it's worth examining the chain of events to fully understand the evil being done to both asylum seekers and the Australian taxpayer.
On October 3rd 2014, The then Immigration Minister Morrison claimed (and I quote) Save the Children staff were "coaching asylum seekers to manufacture situations where evidence could be
obtained to pursue a political and ideological agenda in Australia".
Ten of
these staff were unceremoniously deported from Nauru .
Subsequently, two inquiries have
been conducted into these allegations.
The Moss Review finding relevant to the
conduct of Save the Children employees was -
The review obtained
information from Wilson
(Review into recent allegations relating to conditions and
circumstances at the Regional Processing in Nauru - Executive Summary p 5/6)
A Senate Review which followed, found, inter alia -
conditions in the
centre were "not adequate, appropriate or safe for the asylum seekers
detained there".
So, in summary, people employed under contract to ensure the
welfare of asylum seekers and their children have been unjustly turfed because
of government paranoia about how the situation looks in the media, and the place isn't
safe for its inmates. (And it looks like you and me, the taxpayers, will be asked to compensate them.)
So forgetting, for a moment that those interned have no idea
of release dates, no hope for the future, and absolutely no rights whatsoever,
the camps are unsafe places.
This is being carried out,
gentle reader, in your name.
Then, of course, there is the continuing obscenity that is
the Mojgan Shamsalipoor case which has been dragging on for months.
Again, the separation of a married couple and the likelihood
that the deportation of the wife may result in her being harmed, possibly
killed, is being conducted in your name.
If "stopping the boats" was the goal of these
policies, it has largely been achieved. Why then, are people continuing to be
treated in much the same way as the Nazis treated Jews in World war two?
The most significant difference between these camps and the notorious camps of WW2, is the lack of gas chambers, although they are being called a "solution".
Interesting, isn't it, how that "solution" word has turned up in history in relation to the treatment of specific groups of people. The "Pacific Solution", I
think, was the phrase John Howard was content to use.
Let's not beat about the bush, these places (Nauru ,
Manus and Christmas Island ), are quite simply,
concentration camps.
I never thought I'd live to see my country running concentration camps.
14 comments:
You say "save the children staff" were booted from Manus. When was that and how many children were on Manus? Until the riot and for some time after there were no children in detention at Manus. Unless things changed when contractors changed your tale seems spurious. Save the children staff at a detention centre not catering for children.....why?
The name of the NGO is irrelevant.
They were contracted by the Dept of Immigration to provide welfare services to asylum seekers.
What is relevant is that two separate inquiries found that they were booted for no other reason than to save face.
I don't know about you, but I don't want my taxpayer dollar spent on a failed propaganda exercise.
You say the name of the ngo is irrelevant, but to anyone reading the clap trap you post this is merely proof that you lie in an effort to make spurious claims against the Govt. You haven't had a lot to say about 1200 drownings caused by decisions made by a Labor Govt.
you lie in an effort to make spurious claims against the Govt
Show me where anything I posted on this issue is a "lie".
The "lie" was the accusation by Morrison that Save the Children staff had made up stories about treatment of asylum seekers at Manus. He then instituted an inquiry that found this wasn't the case.
As for the drownings, the responsibility for this is shared by Howard, Rudd and Gillard. Howard used the Tampa incident to wedge Labor and win an election he was in danger of losing, and Labor fell for the trap. Asylum seeker policy then became a political issue, unlike what happened when the Vietnamese sought asylum, and we settled 170000 of them successfully without the political claptrap. The Coalition successfully harnessed fear and bigotry against asylum seekers from Muslim countries as a political weapon. This is the successful Adolf Hitler model used against the Jews in WW2. The "drownings" meme was a smokescreen.
In the late 70s and early 80s we cooperated with the United Nations Comprehensive Plan of Action initiative and the drownings stopped - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
I was proud of my country then, but am ashamed of it now.
The guilt for the drownings is bi-partisan. Only the Greens have dealt with this issue with honour and integrity.
Let me preface my comments by stating that I never agreed with Howard's policy but as you stated Bob it won him an election and to do anything different would have cost Rudd and Gillard their terms......that's democracy at work and if you are ashamed of that then more fool you.
It's not "democracy at work". It's using the most base human instincts (fear and loathing) to secure political advantage. That was something new introduced by Howard when he sent the SAS on board the Tampa.
Fraser and Hawke successfully settled 170000 refugees without recourse to that, but they were leaders, not spivs.
Actually Bob it is democracy at work no guns were held to voters heads and right or wrong that's the democratic process, get as overwrought as you want but that's the fact.
Actually Bob, no guns were held at the German voters' heads when they elected Hitler in 1933. He used fear and loathing of the Jews to secure power. Familiar, isn't it?
As usual Bob your grasp of history is singular, Hitler was elected on many platforms, do some research.
Really, Bob?
Read the third paragraph of this citation - http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/261.extract
Thanks anonymous - my point precisely.....
Oh joy Bob's sock puppet found a paragraph supporting his singular view, 60 million people died as a result of the third reich and you think it can be understood in a paragraph?
You're re-writing history, Bob.
Xenophobia, especially hatred of Jews, was a significant factor in the rise of the Nazi regime.
It is a shameful, but well worn political strategy, used to great effect by tyrants like Hitler, and wannabes like Trump.
I never thought I see the day when Australian politicians used it.
Bob once again your singular view lets you down, enough.
Post a Comment