|
The Peccadillo posted:No, a given island might be a hosed up place to live, but it is not prison camp. This is exactly what they want to make you think. Whatever facilities the camp provided will likely be gone, and they will be left to contend with the local residents (who like them even less than the guards). But at least they will be able to walk the couple thousand metres from one side of the island to the other! It is just as poo poo, and the government is offloading whatever obligations they pretended to have in the first place. Wait until you hear from your reffo hating workmates about what a wonderful and humane gesture the government is making.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
It is bigger than a loving prison camp
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
open24hours posted:What kind of difference does it make if it was terrorism or not? I know it's fun to complain about the Telegraph being hysterical and all, but honestly who cares? How very white of you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:This is exactly what they want to make you think. It was a loving prison camp
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Yes, it was a loving prison camp, but now the Australian government has found a way to abrogate it's responsibilities for the welfare of those refugees even further than they already have. Refugees in loving prison camps = bad Refugees unprotected on an island where a lot of the locals really hate them = also bad It's gone from a horrible situation to a slightly different horrible situation. If the refugees are fit to walk around Naru, then they're fit to walk around Australia. Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
freebooter posted:We can laugh at Shorten all we want but the only people who actually parse political messaging to this degree are people like us. The vast, vast majority of Australians (and swing voters) hear this and think "hmmm yeah." It's not exactly working for popular every-man Bill Shorten though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Tellfield have consistantly argued that the wellbeing of contentraded asylum seekers was none of their business, and the Nauru government was responsible
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Yes, it was a loving prison camp, but now the Australian government has found a way to abrogate it's responsibilities for the welfare of those refugees even further than they already have. Yeah, it was like only a few days ago that a Somali woman was raped on the island. Look forward to more of that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Refugees in loving prison camps = bad You guys are making me feel crazy for thinking this is leaps and bounds apart, but goddamn if I don't
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:They keep this poo poo pretty tight lidded, generally. The press release keeps getting delay after delay, but there'll be definite word on what happened exactly pretty soon. 9 pm tonight
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Yeah, it was like only a few days ago that a Somali woman was raped on the island. Look forward to more of that! You don't pay the rapists salaries and pay to hide them from justice any more
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:How very white of you. Which part exposes my whiteness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
It's not so much that it's not (in theory) a nice idea. It's just such a tiny loving baby step that it makes little difference. Like, for us to welcome the idea that after spending years and years in horrific detention conditions, a bunch of totally innocent people are now really lucky to have full access to all 21 square kilometres of an impoverished island... it just goes to show what a loving twisting, winding snake of anti-logic led us to this point. Explain the current policy decisions and rules about asylum seekers in Australia to someone in the 1980s and they'd think you were loving batshit. And yet we've reached each step little by little, over the course of many years, so now it seems normal. There's probably a snappy political term for something like that. Gorilla Salad posted:If the refugees are fit to walk around Naru, then they're fit to walk around Australia. This is basically all that needs to be said. Processing refugees in different countries is and always has been a ridiculously illogical exercise in pointlessness. I would rather see asylum seekers detained in (hypothetical) decent detention centres with plenty of oversight and a reasonable processing time on the Australian mainland, than see them "free" to wander about on a sandbar in the the middle of the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
shoutout to all homos. love em. : )
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Refugees in the community in Australia are also subject to random abuse and vilification from the locals. The difference is, what, Australia is a bigger place? Refugees can more easily blend in? That's assimilationist bunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
freebooter posted:It's not so much that it's not (in theory) a nice idea. It's just such a tiny loving baby step that it makes little difference. This is an insanely big loving change, I genuinely, genuinely don't understand the blase attitude all up in
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
I'll believe it when it happens. Plus this still leaves everyone in Manus, Xmas Island etc still imprisoned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:This is an insanely big loving change, I genuinely, genuinely don't understand the blase attitude all up in Maybe you should list all the benefits this change is going to bring - might convince others to come around to your way of thinking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Refugees in the community in Australia are also subject to random abuse and vilification from the locals. The difference is, what, Australia is a bigger place? Refugees can more easily blend in? That's assimilationist bunk. Australia is a huge, wealthy, prosperous country where they can have a future. Nauru is not. What's the end game here? Are we still running on "arrive by boat and YOU WILL NOT BE SETTLED IN AUSTRALIA"? Are the refugees who now get day trips to the beach still being processed for settlement in Australia, or are they in limbo with the only other option being to go home? Or are they now being expected to settle in Nauru? Or is Cambodia or wherever the gently caress it was still on the table? This is how loving torturous and nonsensical Australian refugee policy has become - I pay more attention to it than most average Joes but I still have no clue what the deal is these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
I get that it's vastly short of enough, the sun will explode before we could possibly atone, and these lives will be far from fair or ideal or easy on Nauru, but you and I are gonna stop keeping people in those prison camps
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Also this doesn't do much good if we're still towing boats back and/or watching as people drown in the Indian Ocean
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:you and I are gonna stop keeping people in those prison camps That we put them into in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Nauru is effectively a prison if you have no money and no means to go anywhere else. It's a remote, isolated location where there is very little ability for any of these released refugees to come and sully our sacred shores. The entire purpose of regional off-shore processing is to put asylum seekers in as far a location from Australia as is possible and is now impossible for them to seek a way to get here Nauru has a wonderful and envious unemployment rate of about 90%, so there's no real chance of any refugee gaining any kind of work to support themselves. Given these people will be living in horrendous conditions with no illusion of a duty of care from the Australian Government and left to mercy of resentful locals, I can't really imagine their situation will be markedly improved in any real capacity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Did the Nauruan government make this policy change unilaterally?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:Did the Nauruan government make this policy change unilaterally? If there wasnt a hefty inducement by our govt I'd be very surprised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Australia is a huge, wealthy, prosperous country where they can have a future. Nauru is not. Well you are talking about resettlement which is the end stage that less than 1% of refugees are able to access globally. Most refugees chose either local integration or to return when it is safe to do so. Being free to enter the community in Nauru is better than returning or being held in a camp, but not as good as being resettled, obviously. In my opinion resettlement places should be offered to people who are waiting in UN camps on an equal footing to boat arrivals who can self select but that could just be my overactive sense of fairness. If countries are going to be stingy with offering resettlement then at least offer those places in a way that gives people who aren't rich enough to pay people smugglers a chance. Negligent fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
No, pretty sure you're a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:You don't pay the rapists salaries and pay to hide them from justice any more So you're more worried about your personal sense of guilt than the actual material differences this will make to the lives of refugees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Here's how things are going to play out on Nauru. The prison camps we had the refugees locked up in were abominable. Nonetheless we/the Nauruan government had to make sure they were sheltered, clothed, fed and given water to some degree, however slight. The refugees will now be free. Good for them! They can now live the dream albeit on a tiny island nation with no resources and a GDP per capita of $5,000. There is no employment for them, the local populace hates them and neither the Nauruan nor our government has any duty of care for them. They have no method of leaving Nauru.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:This is an insanely big loving change, I genuinely, genuinely don't understand the blase attitude all up in I imagine it has something to do with a thread full of people keeping up to date on Australian politics. Don't forget this was a policy change masterminded by the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott. A politician with just enough intelligence to understand the word semiotics, and to occasionally use it in public interviews. I somehow doubt that they have good intentions for these asylum seekers. The press release that emphasised an increase in police numbers, and having one liaison officer for every two asylum seekers. The extra surf life savers is the cherry on top because it certainly wouldn't look good for the politicians if asylum seekers wound up drowning themselves with freedom. Funky See Funky Do posted:Did the Nauruan government make this policy change unilaterally? The Nauru press release said that the Australian government's money train was the impetuous for this announcement. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Here's how things are going to play out on Nauru. The prison camps we had the refugees locked up in were abominable. Nonetheless we/the Nauruan government had to make sure they were sheltered, clothed, fed and given water to some degree, however slight. The refugees will now be free. Good for them! They can now live the dream albeit on a tiny island nation with no resources and a GDP per capita of $5,000. There is no employment for them, the local populace hates them and neither the Nauruan nor our government has any duty of care for them. They have no method of leaving Nauru. They are currently allowed to leave during the day, they are now allowed to leave 24 hours a day. The government is not washing it's hands of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:So you're more worried about your personal sense of guilt than the actual material differences this will make to the lives of refugees. Not at all, man, I genuinely believe the closure will be positive for the people we've kept there. But I'll be damned too if I'm not gonna always feel terrible that the country I'm an extricable machine-part of did this in the first place, and change to that practice for the better fills me with fuckin' joy
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Negligent posted:They are currently allowed to leave during the day, they are now allowed to leave 24 hours a day. The government is not washing it's hands of them and what happens when they shut down the camp entirely 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Here's how things are going to play out on Nauru. The prison camps we had the refugees locked up in were abominable. Nonetheless we/the Nauruan government had to make sure they were sheltered, clothed, fed and given water to some degree, however slight. The refugees will now be free. Good for them! They can now live the dream albeit on a tiny island nation with no resources and a GDP per capita of $5,000. There is no employment for them, the local populace hates them and neither the Nauruan nor our government has any duty of care for them. They have no method of leaving Nauru. Yeah. The fact that they will no longer be locked up is great, but who is going to provide food, water, housing, health care, etc for them, let alone protect them from resentful locals? The Nauruan government? Their resources are disastrously thin as it is, and if they shut down the detention centre then there will be even fewer jobs on the island to go around. Back in 2008, Nauru was very concerned about the closure of the centre as around 100 Nauruans would lose their jobs, and it would directly impact about a tenth of the island's population. The Nauruan foreign minister at the time said: "We have got a huge number of families that are suddenly going to be without any income. We are looking at ways we can try and provide some welfare assistance but our capacity to do that is very limited. Literally we have got a major unemployment crisis in front of us." It's likely that the Nauru govt would only do this in exchange for some serious aid money from Australia (or a threat of aid removal).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:and what happens when they shut down the camp entirely
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Well I would hope build a more appropriate form of community housing and transition other services to match. But that's entirely hypothetical for now. Yes, one would HOPE. One could have hoped that we could have done the right thing by these people in the first place. Even better, one could have hoped that what forced these people to flee their homes never happened in the first place. Either you're as naive as a 3 year old in this situation, or you know that Nauru is pretty much stretched to its limit in providing welfare for it's population as it is. It is going to eventuate in a humanitarian crisis for these people, but I suppose it's ok because you have hope it won't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Anyone else catch Bill Shorten comparing terrorism to pedophilia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
The point I was making is that the camp isn't closing, merely allowing people to come and go as they please, so the whole hand wringing post about Australia and/or Nauru not having any continuing obligations to provide for the refugees was in error. People are still being housed and fed in the same manner, the door is just left open. It's not naive to think that a logical development is more appropriate accommodation for this new living arrangement.
Negligent fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
quote:Brisbane Uber attacks: Taxi Council Queensland cites industry anger in condemning alleged assaults on drivers Now the taxis moving on to straight up organised crime racketeering to protect its monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Anidav posted:Anyone else catch Bill Shorten comparing terrorism to pedophilia? Yeah i noted that. Didn't he also stumble the wording in a way that suggested pedophilia was legal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 07:45
|
|