"Abbot's Evil Policy Work" - Fraser

arthwollipot · 11th July 2012, 10:38 PM

Ex-Liberal Prime Minister has slammed Tony Abbott's recent asylum seeker policy announcements as "inhumane" and "lacks integrity".

Quote:

How can you ''restore integrity'' to the policy affecting asylum seekers when the proposals embraced are based on falsehoods, misinformation and a blatant playing of politics with the lives of vulnerable people? This is the opposite of integrity. It is inhumane and demeans Australia. Is this the basis on which Abbott will operate if he, as he believes he will, becomes prime minister?

He has also highlighted innaccuracies and inconsistencies in the policy itself. Here's my favourite:

Quote:

As a final indication of the value of this policy, it refers to section 49A of the Migration Act. There is no section 49A.

Read the article from The Age

lionking · 11th July 2012, 10:41 PM

When a revered elder of your own party turns on you, most will take notice. Abbott won't.

Damien Evans · 12th July 2012, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

When a revered elder of your own party turns on you, most will take notice. Abbott won't.

I wouldn't call him revered exactly. Most of the Howard supporters in the party disowned him long ago. Fraser, rightly, does not care.

dutchroll · 12th July 2012, 12:55 AM

Yeah I agree that Fraser is certainly no longer "revered" by his party.

After a being a controversial political figure for so many years, a long time ago Fraser decided that he was going to spend the remainder of his post-political life championing the cause of the extremely disadvantaged and poor people in the world.

Such causes are fundamentally against modern Australian conservative political principles.

Wildy · 12th July 2012, 06:01 AM

I wonder why that is though?

a_unique_person · 12th July 2012, 06:53 AM

Julian Burnside points out more errors of fact in Abbott's refugee posturing.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4123872.html

Quote:

Specifically, he said:

"I don't think it's a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door. ... I think the people we accept should be coming the right way and not the wrong way. ... If you pay a people-smuggler, if you jump the queue, if you take yourself and your family on a leaky boat, that's doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn't encourage it."

It is not surprising that Mr Abbott has a view about the moral dimension of refugee issues. It is entirely appropriate that he should consider the matter from the perspective of Christian teaching, given that he trained for the priesthood. I would go so far as to say that more politicians should pay attention to the moral implications of the policies they have to determine.

What is striking is that Mr Abbott could get the matter so spectacularly wrong, both as to the facts and as to the moral equation.

First: the facts. Mr Abbott should know that there is no queue when you run for your life. The recent execution of an Afghan woman by the Taliban (another example of a very well-established pattern) gives some idea of why people seek asylum. A significant proportion of boat-people in the past 15 years have been Afghan Hazaras fleeing the Taliban. If an Afghan were to embrace Mr Abbott's scruples and look for a queue, the obvious place would be the Australian Embassy in Kabul. The Department of Foreign Affairs website informs us:

"The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not publicly disclosed due to security reasons. The Australian Embassy in Kabul has no visa function."

So where is the queue?

Leave aside that the location of the Australian Embassy is a secret, the larger point is that refugee flows are always untidy. The idea that desperate people will conduct themselves as if waiting for a bus to take them to the shops is not only ludicrous, it reveals a complete lack of empathy, or even understanding, of why refugees flee for safety in the first place.

As it happens, more than 90 per cent of boat-people who have arrived in Australia in the past 15 years have been accepted, eventually, as genuine refugees. Mr Abbott should understand this: it means that they are people to whom we owe a duty of protection according to our own laws, and according to the obligations we voluntarily undertook when we signed the Refugees Convention.

Wildy · 12th July 2012, 08:05 AM

I wonder how long it will take people to understand that Abbott is more than happy to allow the boat people to die so long as he can use it as a point to bash the government with. As long as he gets his party members to vote against whatever anyone who isn't them comes up with he can then say "Labor has failed to stop the boats".

11th July 2012, 10:38 PM	#1
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,005	"Abbot's Evil Policy Work" - Fraser Ex-Liberal Prime Minister has slammed Tony Abbott's recent asylum seeker policy announcements as "inhumane" and "lacks integrity". Quote: How can you ''restore integrity'' to the policy affecting asylum seekers when the proposals embraced are based on falsehoods, misinformation and a blatant playing of politics with the lives of vulnerable people? This is the opposite of integrity. It is inhumane and demeans Australia. Is this the basis on which Abbott will operate if he, as he believes he will, becomes prime minister? He has also highlighted innaccuracies and inconsistencies in the policy itself. Here's my favourite: Quote: As a final indication of the value of this policy, it refers to section 49A of the Migration Act. There is no section 49A. Read the article from The Age
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

11th July 2012, 10:41 PM	#2
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,652	When a revered elder of your own party turns on you, most will take notice. Abbott won't.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

12th July 2012, 12:09 AM	#3
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,286	Originally Posted by lionking When a revered elder of your own party turns on you, most will take notice. Abbott won't. I wouldn't call him revered exactly. Most of the Howard supporters in the party disowned him long ago. Fraser, rightly, does not care.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

12th July 2012, 06:01 AM	#5
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,922	I wonder why that is though?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

12th July 2012, 06:53 AM	#6
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,326	Julian Burnside points out more errors of fact in Abbott's refugee posturing. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4123872.html Quote: Specifically, he said: "I don't think it's a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door. ... I think the people we accept should be coming the right way and not the wrong way. ... If you pay a people-smuggler, if you jump the queue, if you take yourself and your family on a leaky boat, that's doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn't encourage it." It is not surprising that Mr Abbott has a view about the moral dimension of refugee issues. It is entirely appropriate that he should consider the matter from the perspective of Christian teaching, given that he trained for the priesthood. I would go so far as to say that more politicians should pay attention to the moral implications of the policies they have to determine. What is striking is that Mr Abbott could get the matter so spectacularly wrong, both as to the facts and as to the moral equation. First: the facts. Mr Abbott should know that there is no queue when you run for your life. The recent execution of an Afghan woman by the Taliban (another example of a very well-established pattern) gives some idea of why people seek asylum. A significant proportion of boat-people in the past 15 years have been Afghan Hazaras fleeing the Taliban. If an Afghan were to embrace Mr Abbott's scruples and look for a queue, the obvious place would be the Australian Embassy in Kabul. The Department of Foreign Affairs website informs us: "The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not publicly disclosed due to security reasons. The Australian Embassy in Kabul has no visa function." So where is the queue? Leave aside that the location of the Australian Embassy is a secret, the larger point is that refugee flows are always untidy. The idea that desperate people will conduct themselves as if waiting for a bus to take them to the shops is not only ludicrous, it reveals a complete lack of empathy, or even understanding, of why refugees flee for safety in the first place. As it happens, more than 90 per cent of boat-people who have arrived in Australia in the past 15 years have been accepted, eventually, as genuine refugees. Mr Abbott should understand this: it means that they are people to whom we owe a duty of protection according to our own laws, and according to the obligations we voluntarily undertook when we signed the Refugees Convention.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

12th July 2012, 12:55 AM	#4
dutchroll New Blood Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Posts: 5	Yeah I agree that Fraser is certainly no longer "revered" by his party. After a being a controversial political figure for so many years, a long time ago Fraser decided that he was going to spend the remainder of his post-political life championing the cause of the extremely disadvantaged and poor people in the world. Such causes are fundamentally against modern Australian conservative political principles.

12th July 2012, 08:05 AM	#7
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,922	I wonder how long it will take people to understand that Abbott is more than happy to allow the boat people to die so long as he can use it as a point to bash the government with. As long as he gets his party members to vote against whatever anyone who isn't them comes up with he can then say "Labor has failed to stop the boats".
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff