Sattler sacked over Gillard interview

 
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
This is why I dislike the politically correct, they can't have a rational logical debate/discussion, they have to turn it into an argument.
2301
This is why I dislike you. I have requested you back up your claims with facts on several occasions, which you always ignore. The latest of course being your baseless claims regarding immigration and refugees.

Very much like a shock-jock really.

I'm surprised you can even find the word 'correct' in your vocabulary.

Sponsored advertisement

  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
...
This seems to be typical of the left/socialist mindset, shut your opposition down by limiting freedom of speech by running them out of business with abuse and insults.

This is why I dislike the politically correct, they can't have a rational logical debate/discussion, they have to turn it into an argument.
2301

If calling people out for constantly playing on peoples insecurities and prejudices and those who can't see past that is politically correct...

One can only hope that the better angels of our nature aren't slain for ratings and/or votes.
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
This is why I dislike you. I have requested you back up your claims with facts on several occasions, which you always ignore. The latest of course being your baseless claims regarding immigration and refugees.

Very much like a shock-jock really.

I'm surprised you can even find the word 'correct' in your vocabulary.
bingley hall

Nah, I haven't made any baseless claims.  I was just pointing out that the current uncontrolled immigration is damaging the country financially thanks to the current Governments inaction.

I see sattler reckons he got the sack because he has Parkinson disease?
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
If calling people out for constantly playing on peoples insecurities and prejudices and those who can't see past that is politically correct...

One can only hope that the better angels of our nature aren't slain for ratings and/or votes.
cootanee

That doesn't make any sense to me?
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
That doesn't make any sense to me?
2301

Bit too subtle...

Try this.

Most people aren't inherently bad. Within us are values, morals, loves, hates, prejudices, greed, generosity, fears and strengths etc. The same person can one day be doing a good deed and another stomping on someone's head.

So a better angel for example is helping your fellow man (regardless of race, sex, colour, creed).

Lesser angel is FU I'm all right Jack.

However people with influence can work on any trait they want - they can bring out the best or worst to suit their own agenda. People in a lynch mob aren't necessarily homicidal individuals.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Nah, I haven't made any baseless claims.  I was just pointing out that the current uncontrolled immigration is damaging the country financially thanks to the current Governments inaction.
"2301"


And there we have it - exactly what Bingley Hall was saying earlier in this thread - a totally baseless claim with not a shred of evidence to back it up.
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
Bit too subtle...

Try this.

Most people aren't inherently bad. Within us are values, morals, loves, hates, prejudices, greed, generosity, fears and strengths etc. The same person can one day be doing a good deed and another stomping on someone's head.

So a better angel for example is helping your fellow man (regardless of race, sex, colour, creed).

Lesser angel is FU I'm all right Jack.

However people with influence can work on any trait they want - they can bring out the best or worst to suit their own agenda. People in a lynch mob aren't necessarily homicidal individuals.
cootanee
But at what cost?  You can't save the world you know, god knows people have been trying forever.  I do not have a problem with legitimate refugees, just people who are blatantly rorting and manipulating the system to their advantage at the expense of others and at the detriment of our country.

Do you want your taxes to increase to pay for their policy failures?
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
And there we have it - exactly what Bingley Hall was saying earlier in this thread - a totally baseless claim with not a shred of evidence to back it up.
Valvegear

Your obviously not abreast of the current situation happening with the unauthorised boat arrivals.  I believe the total cost of this since K.rudd and Jules got in is getting close to 10 Billion.  

I can't understand this attitude of oh it's not really happening, because I think it is not happening....bizarre.  And yet you say I am making a baseless claim.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
This is getting way off topic because Sattler wasn't pushing the PM on immigration.

So why is someone as influential as Sattler and other shock jocks constantly inciting those lesser angels.

What if he did an interview with the Opposition Leader like this (however unlikely Rolling Eyes )

As the future PM some of our listeners would like know about sexual and religious matters concerning you and your spouse...

And away he went

Yes this sort of 'freedom' may suit ones political leanings most of the time but this is a very slippery slope!
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Your obviously not abreast of the current situation happening with the unauthorised boat arrivals.  I believe the total cost of this since K.rudd and Jules got in is getting close to 10 Billion.
"2301"


See?  You've just done it again.

"I believe . . . " does not constitute evidence.  You might believe in the Tooth Fairy, but it's not evidence of her existence.
Instead of telling me and others that we're not abreast of the situation, it would be a good idea if you either produce facts and evidence, or shut up. We don't need mindless propaganda.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
So why is someone as influential as Sattler and other shock jocks constantly inciting those lesser angels.
cootanee
What the hell do angels have to do with this anyway?

  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
What the hell do angels have to do with this anyway?

...
Graham4405


Abraham Lincoln referred to "the better angels of our nature". You may say we have angels and demons in our nature. You see the good in people and the bad. Push the right buttons and you can bring out either (modus operandi of cock jocks).

I tried to explain it to 2301 a few posts back as he didn't get the subtle reference.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
See?  You've just done it again.

"I believe . . . " does not constitute evidence.  You might believe in the Tooth Fairy, but it's not evidence of her existence.
Instead of telling me and others that we're not abreast of the situation, it would be a good idea if you either produce facts and evidence, or shut up. We don't need mindless propaganda.
"Valvegear"

Okay, you want a fact on cost, here it is, from 2002 to 2007 the Howard Government's TOTAL expenditure on illegal arrivals was about $1 billion for the FIVE YEARS. Under Rudd the WORKING preventatives were dismantled (even Mark 'The Liar of Liverpool' Latham agreed on 'Q and A' two eps ago that Howard was right and Labor, including Latham, had got it well wrong), the cost since 2007 has been at least $1 billion PA. Budgets for coping with illegal arrivals in FYs since 2010-11 inclusive have collectively gone over budget by $5 billion.

The budget for financial year ending 2013 the cost had been re budgeted from $1.1 billion to $2.2 billion, thus this one last year represents a cost 200% more than the total spend FYs 2002-07.

I believe 2301's belief is probably reasonably close to fact.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Okay, you want a fact on cost, here it is, . . .
"Aaron"


No Aaron, I don't want a fact on cost from you.  

I want 2301 to put up facts, rather than telling us that we have to accept his, "I believe" etc.

You strike me as a man who knows law, and you would have to agree that what he says is opinion at best when there is nothing concrete to support it.

Your post at least has numbers which is an improvement over 2301's efforts. Hopefully he may learn from you.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
It is seemingly remiss of me not to publish the source of those numbers, but it would seem the WYSIWYG editor isn't as WYSIWYG as I thought, it killed the link.

http://www.bigpondmoney.com.au/illegal-boat-arrivals-what-it-really-costs
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
It is seemingly remiss of me not to publish the source of those numbers, but it would seem the WYSIWYG editor isn't as WYSIWYG as I thought, it killed the link.

http://www.bigpondmoney.com.au/illegal-boat-arrivals-what-it-really-costs
Aaron

I think that if someone is prepared to quote figures then it may also be worth posting this line from the same article.

"No matter which way you look at it, the refugee situation worldwide is ever growing. This is an indictment on both the political frailty that grips so many nations and the basic desire of many to seek a more prosperous life.

The resulting refugee situation, regardless of where and how they arrive, is not going to go away. Particularly as "pull" factors are proving almost irresistible to those able to scrape the funds necessary to buy a berth on an illegal boat."

And yes I want to stop boats, my own prejudice is that there are economic refugees and it does cost a lot (but relative to the $$$ scheme of things Rolling Eyes ).

I've never fought to survive, been shot at or bombed, had no food and shelter, been politically or socially persecuted (well not much) or lost my economic/social standing - I don't know how strong the motivation is. That's why I'm not bought by the 'We will turn the boats around'.

So far they have qualified this as the reality of that digestible one liner is questioned. No danger to Defence personal, won't breech Indonesia's Waters, will need our neighbour's co-operation, etc.

As for the cost once they get here - let those angels decide Wink
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
No Aaron, I don't want a fact on cost from you.  

I want 2301 to put up facts, rather than telling us that we have to accept his, "I believe" etc.

You strike me as a man who knows law, and you would have to agree that what he says is opinion at best when there is nothing concrete to support it.

Your post at least has numbers which is an improvement over 2301's efforts. Hopefully he may learn from you.
Valvegear

Valve, you are just blocking for blocking sake.  I am really enjoying the debates here, but you should contribute in a constructive way.  

Like you, I am very time poor, and yes I do get a lot of my information from the media, like you and everyone else does.  I have no reason to doubt the figures bandied around about the cost of boat people dilemma, because it comes from multiple sources of media outlets both left and right.

Now, I am not doing a thesis at university, so I don't see why I should quote citations and reference every time I post something here as I am just having a general discussion/debate and I am sure most people would not bother reading them anyway.  To say that every time someone engages in debate about boat people  they should have to quote figures is just playing a game of semantics.
  Dungog Diesel Junior Train Controller

I am not doing a thesis at university, so I don't see why I should quote citations and reference every time I post something here as I am just having a general discussion/debate.
"2301"


I'm fairly sure Valvegear isn't asking you to provide a university thesis with full Harvard referencing...

But it is not unreasonable for Valvegear to ask that you back up your supposed "facts" with a bit of evidence, or maybe a simple link to the place you found them? Otherwise you could be (and, from what I've read, probably are) making up absolute bulldust and posting it here as fact rather than fiction.

To Aaron's great credit, he's given some hard numbers and a link to where he found them. He's probably "very time poor" like you (and most of us), but he still found a few minutes for a web search to ensure he wasn't posting rubbish.

It's not a big ask for you to do the same.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Valve, you are just blocking for blocking sake.
"2301"


Nonsense.  
But since you still refuse to provide one scintilla of evidence - something which Aaron was good enough to do - your posts remain valueless propaganda.
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
Nonsense.  
But since you still refuse to provide one scintilla of evidence - something which Aaron was good enough to do - your posts remain valueless propaganda.
Valvegear

I believe you are being disingenuous in your intentions to debate the issue at hand.  The facts are out there, being distributed in the media for evaluation by everyone with the boat people statistics being sourced from the Australian Government.  

It is a general discussion/debate, to ask people to provide proof/statistics about this topic, when just about every man, woman, dog, cat and bird in Australia would understand and know that there is a problem with unauthorised arrivals is just nonsense.
  Dungog Diesel Junior Train Controller

just about every man, woman, dog, cat and bird in Australia would understand and know that there is a problem with unauthorised arrivals
"2301"


Well then just about every man, woman, dog, cat and bird in Australia would be wrong.

Why? Well, just because people arrive by boat, this does not make their arrival "unauthorised" or illegal. In fact, arriving by boat and seeking asylum is perfectly legal - as it should be.

Would you like some evidence for that, 2301? Well, the  UN Refugee Convention of 1951 makes it clear that people arriving on the shores of signatory nations (of which Australia is one) are perfectly within their rights to seek asylum and have their claims assessed without punishment or repercussion. Articles 31, 32 and 33 are particularly clear on this.

Hence perhaps we could stick to the term 'asylum seekers' rather than 'illegal' or 'unauthorised' arrivals? Those terms are both unfair and incorrect.
  Greensleeves Chief Commissioner

Location: If it isn't obvious by now, it should be.
Well then just about every man, woman, dog, cat and bird in Australia would be wrong.

Why? Well, just because people arrive by boat, this does not make their arrival "unauthorised" or illegal. In fact, arriving by boat and seeking asylum is perfectly legal - as it should be.

Would you like some evidence for that, 2301? Well, the  UN Refugee Convention of 1951 makes it clear that people arriving on the shores of signatory nations (of which Australia is one) are perfectly within their rights to seek asylum and have their claims assessed without punishment or repercussion. Articles 31, 32 and 33 are particularly clear on this.

Hence perhaps we could stick to the term 'asylum seekers' rather than 'illegal' or 'unauthorised' arrivals? Those terms are both unfair and incorrect.
Dungog Diesel

Here we go, pages 31 and 32 state that:

"
Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

1.


The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their

illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory

where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or

are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present

themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their

illegal entry or presence.

2.


The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refu-

gees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions

shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they

obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow

such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain

admission into another country.


Article 32
expulsion

1.


The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their terri-

tory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2.


The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision

reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling rea-

sons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to

submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the

purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially desig-

nated by the competent authority.

3.


The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period
30
c o n v e n t i o n

a n d

p r o t o c o l
within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting
States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as
they may deem necessary.

Article 33
prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)

1.

No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member-
ship of a particular social group or political opinion.

2.

The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of that country.
"

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
  2301 Train Controller

Location: Banned
Here we go, pages 31 and 32 state that:

"
Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

1.


The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their

illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory

where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or

are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present

themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their

illegal entry or presence.

2.


The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refu-

gees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions

shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they

obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow

such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain

admission into another country.

Article 32
expulsion

1.


The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their terri-

tory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2.


The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision

reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling rea-

sons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to

submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the

purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially desig-

nated by the competent authority.

3.


The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period
30
c o n v e n t i o n

a n d

p r o t o c o l
within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting
States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as
they may deem necessary.

Article 33
prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)
1.

No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member-
ship of a particular social group or political opinion.

2.

The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of that country.
"

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Greensleeves
And doesn't this just prove how out dated the UNHCR convention is and how it just facilitates the movement of people across borders seeking a better economic life.  

It also challenges Australia's right to exist as a sovereign country with the right to protect it's borders and subsequently the people that exist in it, yes you and me.

Yes, we all have rights in some way or another, but the question in hand is how we execute these rights and our true intentions behind them.  Considering these people cross multiple borders WITH documentation and then just conveniently lose them once they get on board a boat, than that should automatically disqualify these people the right to claim asylum, as is mentioned in the second paragraph?

So going by the criteria you put up, most of these people would qualify as being called ILLEGAL.  contrary to dungog diesel's argument.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.