i like the ABC. some of their shows can certainly be frustrating and display an element of bias but in a country where the majority of our MSM is dominated by people like rupert murdoch i think they provide an important counterpoint. it is then up to us to figure out who we do and dont agree with. completely dismissing the entire ABC is silly imo considering a common insult re ABC viewers is that theyre a bunch of lefty uni students how does that reconcile with the claim theyre uneducated? overly idealistic and often impractical sure but uneducated i dont think so
I think D.T. was being funny. But here is an intesting poll... The polling shows a majority of voters in the seats held by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Education Minister Christopher Pyne would support including the functions of the ABC in the constitution to ensure its independence from government. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/voters-in-blueribbon-liberal-seats-strongly-support-abc-20150705-gi5eaq.html
The problem with the ABC (and I listen to ABC radio all day every day at work - there are no ads and I can tolerate the ABC more than the Comm stations which are infuriating) is that the ABC is Left-leaning across every one of their news and Current Affairs platforms. The overwhelming majority of their reporters and presenters are Left, and in some instances are Liberal (and in particular Tony Abbott) haters. Now, being Left is not an issue for me; it's when they purport to be balanced and unbiased in their presentation, and don't give the Public that presentation - which they are supposed to, because they are paid for to the tune of $1b per year of our money. I can give you hundreds of examples of how their presentations are as above, but I'll give you just one and then my contribution to this thread will be over because I can see where it will head; The Boats.... Whether you are Right or Left, we are all in agreeance that no-one wants to see anyone drown at sea from these boats, correct? We are also all in agreeance that no-one likes to see folks kept indefinitely and in sub-standard conditions at "detention centres". They need to change that phrase. Now; under Labour, there were approx 1200 folks drowned from the Boats, and the detention centres were filling up with refugees. One of the election promises by the LIbs were that they would stop the boats and the drownings, and they got elected partly on that promise. Since they were elected, not one person has drowned in Aus waters from refugee boats, the Boat traffic is down to not even a trickle, and the detention centres are down to less than 100 kids. Since the LIbs getting in, and until this figure was reported only a week or so ago, I have never ever once heard the ABC radio show give the LIbs a pat on the back and say; "Well done; you stopped the boats and drownings!" Not once. No, instead, what they do is snipe away and blame them for sending the problem elsewhere, and/or substandard housing arrangements at the Centres, allegations of little involvement into stopping alleged sexual assaults and suicides etc. The system is not perfect, but let's give a bit of credit where it's due. The ABC rarely if ever do this with Liberal, yet they claim to be the equal and unbiased voice of the public.
Marc the reason the libs aren't getting a pat on the back for their disgusting refugee policies is because they deserve a punch in the face instead.
No matter which way you cut it; there are no simple answers in the life of refugees. All I will say is that if we are not accepting Boats, then there is very little incentive for anyone to get on one to come here. That equates to SAVED LIVES, Sanj. It is a no-win situation. If the Boats come, we end up with lots of drownings, and even more thousands held in detention centres in less than comfortable conditions until when - and if - these folks can be processed. The Gubb gets a pounding and a "punch in the face" for that as well. There are lots of folks who say; "Let everyone in!" No worries; but where will they all be housed, and who will pay for it all? That might sound like a mercenary and purely commercial mindset, but it has to be considered by any Gubb. We are currently hearing whining and moaning on a daily basis about the Deficit, and lots of blame pointed at Tony Abbott for not decreasing it. Keep in mind that Labor created it first, and then the bottom dropped out of the Resources cash-cow, so good luck reducing it in any sort of timely manner. So yeah; everyone go ahead and let everyone arrive, you and I will foot the bill for sure, and that's ok I just never want to hear a single person ever whinge again about how the Gubb is not decreasing the deficit, about how the unemployment issue won't go away, how soaring house prices are killing my chance to buy a McMansion... And I don't ever want to hear a single person complain ever again about how horrifying it is when thousands drown off the W.A coastline each year, or in over-crowded Detention Centres from riots and/or in-fighting etc.
Cool factual errors bro Lives aren't being saved. They're just allegedly not dying in our waters anymore and we're pretending we solved a problem instead of just kicking the can down the road and making it someone else's problem. Of course even if lives were being lost we wouldn't really know since the libs aren't too big on disclosure in this issue U mention the cost, it costs us a hell of a lot more to do it the way we are at the moment. Also, not sure where this claim that I want everyone to be allowed in is coming from either. Ultimate yes, it is a really complex issue with no simple solution but at least trying to take a humanitarian view and not demonizing pepple would be a start wouldn't it?
You're probably right; but where else would they travel to from Indonesia if they can't get into Aus? Which other Countries nearby are letting them in? My understanding was that those who are getting on Boats to come here have reached the end of their journey, and to get to Aus is their last leg? If that's the case, and they can't get here because we won't let them land/turned back, then where do they go?
I don't think media organisation should be giving a country that allows sanctions against whistleblowers who report child sex abuse and rape and violence against marginalised and desperate people. Nor any country that allows such horrendous crimes to continue unchecked.
Absolutely. Imagine how little a problem this would be if noone had made those fateful and deadly trips.
Well done on the "shout from the rooftops" kudos. Now; how about answering my question? Or; anyone else can answer it, because I don't expect to get a reply from you....just the usual 1000 yard snipe via a reply to someone else's posts? Seriously though; where else do these folks go; there must be somewhere that they go to that is "kicking the can down the road", after being denied coming here? Or do they just stay in Indonesia? Anyone?
Yeah. I'm sure they would have been nice and safe. In a warzone. What a sad indictment of what Australia has become. Essentially saying people deserve abuse because they don't have the same privilege of being born a straight white male in a safe country. I sincerely hope you and your family are never in such a situation. But then I have a shred of empathy.
Sorry Marc didn't want it to be a snipe, it's more that this is an issue I feel very strongly about as my own family were refugees during partition time in India and ended up homeless then in a camp in India and then took a boat to singapore. I'll respond in more detail re your post tomorrow. It is certainly a complex situation with no simple solution but I do think we can and should be a lot more humane than we're being atm
As I said; no win for them. What a stupid statement. Nice twist of the situation. It has nothing at all to do with this, and you know it. Now, say something intelligent; like answering my question about WHERE do these folks go to - other than Aus - if they are over in Indonesia and know they cannot get in by boat. I'll guarantee you that these folks won't get on boats to go anywhere else, because their intention is to come here, and only here...and we know how that ends up. And that is not our fault; noone makes anyone come here, and all we can do if they make it is house them in the facilities we have. Is it the Hilton? no. But it's better than a war zone, I'd say. The fact that folks are being gagged for reporting alleged abuse etc is a side issue. People like you try to make it the main issue. So far, all I've heard is handwringing crap about how we are turning these folks away to die elsewhere at sea - but no-one so far has come up with any destination that they are going to where they do die. Where is the evidence and locations of these folks being turned away, then wind up drowned somewhere else? It seems to me that if they don't get on a boat and attempt to come here in the first place, then they won't drown...the evidence so far seems to show that. 1200 with Labor's policy, zero with Lib. But I don't care about LIb or Labor with this; it's a simple matter of stopping folks from attempting the very dangerous trip....and DROWNING. I am baffled how anyone thinks this is a bad thing, and am laughing my sides out that folks think by stopping that, we are all heartless and privileged white trash. So, what's your solution then?
They stay stuck in legal limbo in Indonesia, a country that is not signatory to The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and where they cannot have their claims to refugee status processed, where they cannot work, get an education, or get healthcare. The internationally-approved process under the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, is that asylum seekers should get themselves to a signatory country to have their claims processed. Once processed, they are either classified as refugees - people whose claims for asylum have been found by the Convention's processing standards to have legitimate claims - and resettled in a signatory country (not necessarily Australia), or they are returned to their home country. Indonesia is not a signatory country; most countries in our region aren't. The solution is that Australia should let these refugees fly in to have their claims processed - but doesn't. So asylum seekers tried to come here by boat - and now we've adopted these punitive "turn back the boats" policies. Australia is preventing these people from complying with the lawful process. We should hang our heads in collective shame for our violations of international law. And note that the rates at which asylum seekers have been found to be legitimate refugees has been between 85 and 95% over the past 15 years or so. It's also a myth that asylum seekers are selectively targeting Australia for economic reasons; if that was true, then the five countries with the highest number of asylum seekers/refugees wouldn't be Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, and Iran, all of which host more than 1 million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population Australia presently has around 23,000, or 1 for every 1,029 Australians. Worldwide, there is 1 refugee for every 698 people. Therefore, we aren't even pulling our weight, let alone being disproportionately burdened.
Heellllooo boys and girls. This is about taking the **** out of Q and A. Go start your own boats thread
