• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

dibo

Well-Known Member
This is the bit the Greens don't get - he was a member of the Right faction. He smashed the Left. He was a pragmatist at heart. It was him that said "only the impotent are pure."

The Greens say that Labor has moved to the right, and that Whitlam would be a Green today, but he had the opportunity right up until Tuesday to join the Greens and he stayed Labor to the last.
 

MagpieMariner

Well-Known Member
Gough was only left compared to the Liberals of the day (and today). Back then, the Libs made Genghis Khan look like a Greenie.
 

nearlyyellow

Well-Known Member
You kinda gotta listen to the first vid IMO the best Australian political ad ever made.... the second link is a new one for Tony...

Ahh, you shouldn't have done that. Watching I was at first elated, and then after it was over I shed a tear. Goddam, I *must* stop being such a bloody soft wimp!
But it was such a good campaign, and after 23 years the Menzies acolytes were done for, booted out, only to reappear in 2013. How strange life is. Maybe the current mob of conservatives will last as long in power as poor old Gough did. We can only hope.
 

Einstein

Well-Known Member
via https://twitter.com/_robcorr

I’ve read a few people remarking that Whitlam permanently changed Australia - but Abbott is working hard to make it temporary.

I’m about to spam you with a list of Whitlam’s great achievements and the Abbott government’s response to them.


Whitlam: protected the Great Barrier Reef from oil drilling
Abbott: approved dredging in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Got any that you're actually contesting? Remember, it ain't my list, I'm just sharing it, but I'm interested to see you're asking for sources rather than claiming they were bad ideas or unworthy achievements.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
If we'd like to examine the facts of the matter, Burke gave *conditional* approval for the coal terminal, but had not yet actually yet approved dredging - he was waiting for further reports. See here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-09/nrn-abbot-point/4806438

Mark Butler took over as minister and held up the decision while he waited for public comment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/clock-stopped-on-assessment-of-coal-port-expansion/4876932

So they never actually approved the dredging. The present Minister, Greg Hunt, not only approved the dredging but approved the dumping of dredge spoil in the world heritage area. Labor has (just today, as it happens!) said in response that if dredging is to occur, it must not be dumped on the in the world heritage area. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...reef-world-heritage-area-20141109-11jcvg.html
 

Einstein

Well-Known Member
If we'd like to examine the facts of the matter, Burke gave *conditional* approval for the coal terminal, but had not yet actually yet approved dredging - he was waiting for further reports. See here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-09/nrn-abbot-point/4806438

Mark Butler took over as minister and held up the decision while he waited for public comment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/clock-stopped-on-assessment-of-coal-port-expansion/4876932

So they never actually approved the dredging. The present Minister, Greg Hunt, not only approved the dredging but approved the dumping of dredge spoil in the world heritage area. Labor has (just today, as it happens!) said in response that if dredging is to occur, it must not be dumped on the in the world heritage area. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-to-ban-dredge-spoil-dumping-in-the-great-barrier-reef-world-heritage-area-20141109-11jcvg.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-31/abbot-point-spoil-dredging-approved/5227774

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-16/government-axes-gladstone-reef-dredge-dumping-plans/5096744

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...nsion-approved-with-strict-conditions/5147916


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/abbot-point-dredge-material-to-be-dumped-inland/5727960

So the libs plan to now dump it on the land in October, then in November the ALP reacts and announces this
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...reef-world-heritage-area-20141109-11jcvg.html
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Yeah, the current government essentially approved it and then faced a backlash. The dredging has still been approved, the question is where the dumping is happening. but you're arguing over paperclips on one line of a list I didn't write, but shared. I'm not exactly sure what you're hoping to prove?

What cannot be disputed is that Whitlam had a transformative effect on the country, from social changes like no fault divorce, support for women in work and support for single mothers to economic changes like bringing down tariff walls that really made necessary the later changes like floating the dollar and partially deregulating banks. And he did it in less than three years.
 

MagpieMariner

Well-Known Member
Scabbott & Whine have just had their deregulation of universities thrown out by the Senate. Hopefully, they'll be so upset they'll try for a DD!
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Scott Morrison may gloat but asylum seekers' boats haven't really stopped
Sunili Govinnage
Two facts emerge as the UNHCR meets in Geneva to look at protection for refugees at sea: more people than ever are fleeing their country by boat, and deterrence doesn’t stop them



‘The UNHCR estimates that around 21,000 people have departed from the Bangladesh-Burmese maritime border in the two months of October and November 2014.’ Photograph: AAP
Thursday 11 December 2014 09.30 AEST

For all the slogans and military operations, over 54,000 people have boarded boats across the Indian Ocean this year, with around 20,000 in just the two months of October and November. As much as Scott Morrisonmay gloat, the boats haven’t really stopped.

The point you won’t see on any media release or hear at a doorstop press conference is this: even if people haven’t drowned on the way to Australia, they’ve still drowned. Because people fleeing countries in the region are still getting on boats.

There are many inconvenient facts for those who won’t stop talking about stopping the boats. But perhaps the facts are not so bothersome if they aren’t on the nightly news. After all, if an asylum seeker drowns well enough away from Australian territorial waters, will there be a leadership challenge today? And have you seen Julie Bishop’s broach?

For the rest of us, here are some details.

According to the UNHCR report on Irregular Maritime Movements in South-East Asia, over 50,000 people set sail just from the Bay of Bengal area in January-November 2014. The smugglers operating in the region move people who aretrafficked as well as those paying for passage outside of legal migration channels. The latter includes people such as ethnic Rohingya who do not have any nationality (and therefore no official travel documentation) and have a long history of persecution and discrimination by the Burmese government.

The UNHCR estimates that around 21,000 people have departed from the Bangladesh-Burmese maritime border in the two months of October and November 2014. About 10% were women, and around one-third of arrivals interviewed by UNHCR in Thailand and Malaysia were minors. The numbers for October 2014 are a marked increase (37%) from the year before.

And not all the deaths at sea are merely from drowning, according to the report:

“One in every three interviewees said at least one other passenger on their boat died en route; one in every 10 said 10 or more people died on board. Deaths were attributed to severe beatings by the crew, lack of food and water, illness, and heat.”

Globally, around 350,000 people have risked it all by taking a boat this year. On 10-11 December 2014, UNHCR is hosting a meeting looking specifically atprotection at sea. The non-governmental organisations taking part haverecommended, among other things, that to implement effective protection and ensure safety at sea, it is vital to “address ‘route causes’ and ‘root causes’ of forced and dangerous migration”.

UNHCR notes that these reasons for irregular movement include: conflict and war, protracted refugee situations, statelessness, the absence or inadequacy of protection systems, family separation, poverty and economic inequality.

What is notably absent from all the recommendations to “stop the boats” from these experts is deterrence, which in Morrison’s parlance is also known as “taking the sugar off the table”. This was of course the honourable minister’s reasoning last month for reducing the number of refugees Australia would resettle from Indonesia and banning those who registered with UNHCR in Indonesia after 1 July 2014 from ever getting to Australia.

Sweet though that poison may be (and poisonous is certainly how one can characterise the way Australia treats those who come across the sea), no refugee is paying a people smuggler for any sort of benefit other than getting the hell out of the hell they were in.

At the opening of the UNHCR meeting yesterday, the High Commissioner forRefugees António Guterres said, “You can’t stop a person who is fleeing for their life by deterrence, without escalating the dangers even more”.

So what would work to actually stop people getting on boats? Again, according to the NGO recommendations, practical solutions for preventing irregular migration by sea include:

  • More opportunities for legal migration
  • Cooperative international agreements by states to provide more safe-havens for asylum seekers, e.g., through expanded UNHCR resettlement programmes; and
  • Migration and asylum policies that recognise the benefits of migration and the contributions of migrants and refugees to the development of countries of destination and origin.
It’s ultimately pretty simple and obvious: the key to reducing irregular movement of people by dangerous ways is to increase pathways for properly managed, safe and regulated movement. It involves as Guterres said, “looking at why people are fleeing, what prevents them from seeking asylum by safer means”.

In practice, nobody is going to be able to neatly pack their passport and customs declarations cards in order to flee discrimination or state persecution in a “regular” way. Which is why, in the case of those people, the Refugees Convention set up a system for countries around the world to join forces to help them, and why the UNHCR’s resettlement process allows for countries to accept refugees who cannot return to where they fled. Both of which the Australian government is slowly but surely repudiating.

Opening and expanding legal channels for migration and the movement of asylum seekers and refugees will reduce the use of smugglers and black-market operations. But for various reasons it’s doubtful Australia would be checking off anything on that list of solutions any time soon.

And so the boats will sail on, but just a little further off Morrison’s horizon.
 

Einstein

Well-Known Member
No mention of their destination? What does that have to do with our policy? Where is the direct link or correlation to our policies?
Is it merely circumstantial?
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
The point is very simple.

Morrison can claim to have 'stopped the boats', but people are still getting on boats. People are still running for their lives. People are still dying at sea.

All Morrison has done is get it off our front pages.
 

Einstein

Well-Known Member
He is the Australian minister for Immigration and Border Protection. What does that have to do with people getting on boats in the Bay of Bengal?
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
He is the Australian minister for Immigration and Border Protection. What does that have to do with people getting on boats in the Bay of Bengal?
The 'border protection' bit always makes me gag, as if we're somehow under attack from people running for their lives. Would we have put up fences against people running from the Nazis?

Secondly, if we want to be called a civilised nation, we actually have a responsibility to help solve the problem. 'Stopping the boats' doesn't even do what it says on the sticker, it just stops boats from getting on the Channel 9 news. People are still drowning, and people drowning is a problem whether it's here or somewhere else. If we took a reasonable number of refugees and supported stronger regional processing frameworks we might have a chance of actually solving the problem and saving lives rather than moving the problem out of sight, out of mind.

If you're perfectly fine with people drowning as long as you don't have to hear about it, you're frankly despicable.
 

Online statistics

Members online
28
Guests online
468
Total visitors
496

Forum statistics

Threads
6,793
Messages
395,956
Members
2,745
Latest member
RickeyvoX
Top