S.S, you're entitled to your opinions, but I do not have to respect them, no are you obligated to respect mine.
I am not a socialist, or a communist, I'm not even that left wing. I agree with a lot of Costello's economic policies, though his claim about Labor's economic incompetancy is rather simplistic and overstated.
What I am, however, is a human, and as such I respect every persons entitlement to a free and fair life. The wealth of the world should not be divided equally, simply equitably and I have a fundamental belief that those trying to climb the ladder of society should not use those beneath them as steps, pushing them down as they go up. Nor should those wealthy people at the top of society tread on those beneath to keep themselves there.
Those who make it to the top, have an obligation to give something back to the society who has helped them get there, and it saddens me that many people don't have this sort of social conscience.
Read this quote over SS, think long and hard about it, and if you can give me a decent response, I'll shutup. I'm all to willing to listen to what you have to say, and if you make some decent points then I'll accept them.
"Why merely because we are fortunate to be born in a particular location on this earth, should we enjoy wealth, health and security and be able, in the name of sovereignty, to deny it to others who, mereley because they are born elsewhere suffer the miseries and the humiliations of the damned?"
You claim that just because people voted for the Coalition it doesn't make them a racist, not once did I claim that they were racist. I simply stated that their decision was selfish, immoral and perhaps based on unfounded, irrational fears.
Even if you voted Liberal because of the economic benefits the party has brought you I'll still be adament in my claims that this was selfish. This should only have been one consideration, one that should have taken back seat to the need to send a message to BOTH major parties that there immigration policies are unnacceptable.
On the issue of Australias relations with Indonesia - Whislt you raise a valid point (why would they bother doing anything to stop them), Melancholic has provided a logical and accurate answer. Nations with decent relations have obligations to one another. And if you still believe that Howard has more chance of mending our relations than Beazely then you're just deluding yourself. Here's a quote from Tony Parkinson from an article that appeared in todays The Age...
"John Howard is not a popular figure in Jakarta and almose certainly never will be. Indeed, a lot of powerful Indonesians were hoping to see him lose this election"
And here's an article commenting on one that appeared in the Jakarta press
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2001/11/12/FFXLYB44XTC.html
Melancholic - "he is conservative ie not as open to change as the labour party"
Don't make too many generalisations, Howards government has introduced a number of big changes in the nation, namely the G.S.T and industrial relations reforms, and is planning more I.R reforms in its coming term in office. The only problem, however, is that many of these changes, whilst benefiting some, disadvantage others.
SS, one final point: in your list of things you would like to see addressed in terms of the refugee problem you stated
"d) we don't become seen as the soft-touch of the 1st world for people smugglers."
If the Government wont accept a reasonable number of ligitamite asylum seekers then people are always going to attempt it legally. Better to head off on an unkown voyage with the bleak hope of a better future, than to stick around and face political or religious persacution, sometimes death.
If these people don't come to Australia then they will go somewhere else, if they can't go anywhere else then what do you suppose we do with them? Just leave them to float around on the ocean a la Water World?
I find it quite sickeningly hypocritical that the Allied assault on terrorism justifies it's civil casualties in Afghanistan by giving foreign aid, yet refuses to allow the people it displaces to flee there war torn country and make a new home here. Sure they could wait around til their legal application came through but who knows if they'd still be around to find out?
I know I've simplified this somewhat but I don't have time to sit here all night when I have to study for exams. Yes I realise that there is a percentage of asylum seekers who are not ligitimate refugees, but there are many more who are. What ever happened til innocent until proven guilty? The way the government goes on about it, half the population ends up believing that the majority of asylum seekers are "illegal immigrants" or worst yet "terrorists" who throw their babies into the ocean because they want to kill them all!
Anyways, I've been rambling for far too long now and like I said, I'd much rather have discussions like this in person over a beer or two, and I must say SS, I wouldn't mind doing that with you, never know, perhaps you could convert me *gasp*
------------------
He's tricking us into meaning and pulling the rug out from under us at the same time. A nod, wink and a power fade to a culture that can't contain the labelisms any longer--the trickster is always the most subversive element in any culture--he leads us to our demise while inducing us to laugh, dance and die along the way.
.
