Uneducated, but can google at least.

Posts Tagged ‘immigration

Firey comments

leave a comment »

The stand out story of last week would have been the explosion that happened on a boat carrying a bunch of asylum seekers. This all harks back to 2001 when the Tampa wasn’t allowed to come ashore, due to it carrying people of the same nature. Then it seemed that every single week following that (and the 9-11 attacks) had another story of a band of asylum seekers, or as they became known, “queue jumpers”.

A “Queue Jumper” is something that everybody hates. You’ve been waiting in line for so long to have the chemist check out your headache pills, when some dipshit with a severed arm rushes in front of you, desperate for help. He’s so desperate, you can see the marks from where he has tried to cut off his own leg in order to get more attention. You turn your nose up at Stumpy and tell him to get to the back of the line. Others in the line snort in derision, and even people who have almost left the chemist also turn and heap scorn on the poor fellow – even though they don’t even need to be in the queue and are happy with their lot in life.

So, people who come to Australia on boats are automatically treated with extreme cynicism, no matter how severed their limbs are.

News later in the week shows that, unsurprisingly (if you remember back in 2001 when asylum seekers seemed to be washing up on our shore with the regularity of waves), more boats could be on their way.

It’s the comments that astound me, though.


What the fuck?

So many things wrong with this statement that it’s simply not worth picking apart. I’ll just assume that it’s the kind of wrong-headed song that bleated out by the ever-growing army of wankers who think that walling up our borders to anything that falls outside whitey is the best friggin idea in the world, mayte.

Considering this comment’s flagrant disregard to the value of human life – any human life – it makes this next comment seem a little macabre.


I dunno if this was simply an aloof, off-the-cuff remark, or whether it was in reference to those thirty odd people who suffered severe burns after the previous explosion. Either way, it seems to be in poor taste. Have was descended so far as primitive savages that we turn to cannibalistic jokes? It’s dark humour, even for me.

This also seems to highlight that’s comments moderator could use a better whacking stick.


Written by Andy

April 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Splitting hairs over GTMO detainees

leave a comment »

I’m not many things. For me to become something that people can pigeonhole, it means that I have to be declared as such by some kind of authority. As my last post indicates, I am both a wanker, a bogan and a female genital. But today, I am outlining that I am not a lawyer. Despite my inlawyerness, I still seem to know the difference between a detainee and a convicted criminal.



It would seem that many people are incapable of making this distinction, if judging by the comments on this story regarding Australia possibly accepting detainees from the “Guantanamo Bay detention center” (their spelling, not mine).


That’d be a nice statement if these people were actually found guilty of acts of terrorism, and not… you know… detainees. Detail notwithstanding, I think it’s probably also worth pointing out a little statement that was made in the story by our acting Prime Minister, Julia Gillard:

For anyone to be accepted they would have to meet Australia’s strict legal requirement and go through normal rigorous assessment processes.

That means that anyone coming through customs would be evaluated like any other person seeking to come into Australia. In fact, according to the GTMO wikipedia article, many have actually been cleared for release but cannot find a country that will accept them. How would that feel, huh? Being snaffled up, put in orange pyjamas, held for a year or so and then told to leave, only to find that home (or another country) doesn’t want you because of your orange PJ’s?

Even though you’re not a terrorist. Or even whatever this guy thinks are detained at the camp?


War criminals? Holy god. Oh wait. No. Sorry. We’ve buggered up the definition again.

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including… wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, …taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

Just a small thing. I also think people need to have undergone a trial to be declared a war criminal.

As for the Centrelink thing he mentions, well he may well be right, depending on if the two-year waiting period gets waived on grounds of being a refugee or something. But that would be up to, gasp, Australia’s usual screening and approval process. So, how are GTMO detainees different from anyone else seeking a life in Australia?

Of course, the irony of Australia possibly not wanting convicts isn’t lost on some.


Yeah. Hilarious. Except for the minor difference, you know, they’re not convicts.

I’m kinda aware that I might be splitting hairs a little. But, it’s a pretty big wig of bad hair when it comes down to defining the difference between a criminal and a not-criminal. This display from the comments section is the kind of moron mentality that would sooner gather the pitchforks and torches and wander down to the nearest house to burn down without first checking they had the right address.

I guess the fact that I’ve taken the time to stop and do a simple search to object the audible grunts and whistles coming from the herd of braying imbeciles makes me a bleeding-heart, terrorist-supporting, tree-hugging, whale-saving dipshit. Oh well, let them think whatever they like.

I’d rather be a hair-splitting dipshit than someone who skewers the wrong man with his pitchfork. That would be murder, if I were found guilty by a fair trial.

*Late addition*

How dare them people so unfairly judge us with broad, sweeping generalisations without any kind of justification! They’re all non-human, I tells ya! Every last one of them!!

I guess them referring to all of us as infidels is far worse than being branded as a non-human…

Although, he is a former ADF member. I don’t know whether I should be worried that his kind make it into our defense forces, or whether I should be heartened that he left. I sincerely hope it’s because of the ADF’s own screening process…

Written by Andy

January 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm