Oh my god. They've done it. This takes all rights away. - by Outlooker
ercles on 4/10/2006 at 12:15
Yeh I dunno, I have never caught wind of any real controversy with the detention centres, apart from the ridiculous beaurocracy entailed within. Just because we don't make it easy to get out of the suckers doesn't mean we belt the shit out of the inmates.
I honestly would have thought that if there were human rights violations the media here would have been all over it.
You sure you are not confusing human rights violations in australian camps with australians' human rights being violated in American camps (a la mr Hicks)?
SD on 4/10/2006 at 12:43
Quote Posted by Convict
Are you implying that I cheat on my tax?
People don't pay tax for an extraordinarily wide number of reasons related to age, employment status, dependents etc. That you should automatically assume that a person not paying tax is a "tax cheat" says an awful lot about your mindset, if you don't mind me saying.
Quote:
If you break Australian law it is not unreasonable that you are held in detention. I understand many countries in the world have jails. Confirm/deny?
Leaving to one side the questionable act of detaining people whose only crime is to seek a better life for themselves and their families, I'm rather curious about what laws the hundreds of children in detention centres who are below the age of legal responsibility are supposed to have committed.
I appreciate that the traditional Australian method of forcibly removing these children from their families and relocating them with Nice White Families is no longer available, but do you not think that imprisoning young children for months, sometimes years, is just a bit...
wrong?
Quote:
I'm not aware of these "human rights" violations you refer to in honesty.
I think that's the point.
Convict on 4/10/2006 at 12:50
StD I prefered to assume Paz meant I cheated on my tax rather than start an e-penis debate about who earns more and who pays more tax (which is where I assume it would lead).
Quote:
Leaving to one side the questionable act of detaining people whose only crime is to seek a better life for themselves and their families, I'm rather curious about what laws the hundreds of children in detention centres who are below the age of legal responsibility are supposed to have committed.
I appreciate that the traditional Australian method of forcibly removing these children from their families and relocating them with Nice White Families is no longer available, but do you not think that imprisoning young children for months, sometimes years, is just a bit... wrong?
Ok so should we either break up the families by keeping the parents in custody without the children or should we keep the whole family together in custody? I'm sure you appreciate we can't just let anyone who decides to rock up here without a passport and a verifiable story waltz into Australia. I agree with you that it is not the children's fault that their parents would put their family in such a position.
ercles on 4/10/2006 at 12:50
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I appreciate that the traditional Australian method of forcibly removing these children from their families and relocating them with Nice White Families is no longer available
Ouch, low blow there. Mind you most countries have just as bad of a track record with their aborigionals. And although our PM refuses to say sorry, I walked accross the harbour bridge on reconciliation day.
Matthew on 4/10/2006 at 13:02
Quote Posted by Convict
StD I prefered to assume Paz meant I cheated on my tax rather than start an e-penis debate about who earns more and who pays more tax (which is where I assume it would lead).
Or it could simply have meant that he DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE OLD ENOUGH TO PAY TAX YET. Gawd.
Paz on 4/10/2006 at 13:30
This is, in fact, the case. To put this matter to bed, I thought Convict was about 14. Therefore unlikely to pay tax.
If it helps, I was calling him a horrible excuse for a human being in many other ways!
Anyway, interesting that the discussion didn't stay on the willfully misleading article for very long, or the food-related information contained therein - it moved on to some button pushing about immigration. Keep on twisting and turning there, dude.
A human rights violation is, naturally, implicit in the provision of substandard food to people in the "care" of your state. This, I accept, may now have been solved. demagogue seems to have the skinny on other stuff which helpfully doesn't make the news. There is also the highly dubious moral ground of the whole policy in the first place, but you have made it clear that such things are acceptable to you, so I shall not pursue it as a line of argument.
Convict on 4/10/2006 at 13:32
24 Paz.
Paz you imply dishonesty when you say "keep on twisting and turning there dude" - if I was dishonest about it I could have included only part of the article and left out the bad parts (since it's not on the web anymore). I'm very far from perfect but I wasn't trying to evade questions on my views on the article deliberately. When I see something like this "Copies of the recent menus available at Baxter show fresh eggs, cereal, fresh fruit and fetta cheese served for breakfast, with vindaloo, vegetarian meals, fried chicken and szechuan beef offered for lunch, with rice and salads each day.
For dinner, detainees are served soup, vegetarian meals, braised lamb chops, fried Nile perch and barbecued lamb and chicken, with salad, steamed vegetables, chips and rice." then I feel that I have a legitimate grievance about such a practice. I for one do not eat anywhere near that nicely. Can I quit work and chill at one of these centres please?
Paz on 4/10/2006 at 13:47
You didn't say you were Kiefer Sutherland. That changes everything!
[edit] oh, editing eh.
All you've (and indeed they) listed is a basic menu. A menu shows variety, but not quality. Having four or five things to choose from isn't really that great if they all still turn out to be made with rancid meat.
The article said independent bodies had shown the food to be unacceptable.
It also said now there is a different menu.
At no point did it suggest that the food on that menu was going to be better than it was previously. Presumably that's the intention (in which case, jolly good), but dressing it up as SOME WONDERFUL EVENT is extremely dishonest on the part of the journalist. And, indeed, on your part.
It is not a wonderful event, it is the least that should have been expected in the first place - which apparently was a MAJOR SCREW UP.
Today's your lucky day, you're not being fed rancid meat! Woo hoo, party time!
If you were actually being detained at one of those places for any length of time, you'd be singing a different tune. Also we'd not have to put up with your useless prattle for a while. However, despite this obvious bonus to the world in general, your detention would still be morally unacceptable.
Starrfall on 4/10/2006 at 14:28
Quote Posted by Convict
I for one do not eat anywhere near that nicely. Can I quit work and chill at one of these centres please?
Yeah but I think the important part is that somewhere along the line maggots show up.
Also nothing on that menu is really all that impressive so I can only assume that you eat oat porridge or something every day or have no idea how to cook. (Or else food out there is a whole lot more expensive than I'd ever imagined.)
