Skip to content

How humane can you go?


You know human beings are up themselves when they create words like humane from human.

It’s a word we all greatly pride ourselves with. At one stage, we used to take pride in out ‘humane’-ing each other. It allowed us to better ignore the fact that we are also animals. And with it our ability to add a touch of animalism in our humanity.

The teeth are out over a current debate on just who is more humane than the other. Julia Gillard’s Malaysian solution has been labelled ‘inhumane’ by both the greens and the coalition. An odd label.

The coalition are insisting that their policy is much more humane cause it has 25% less caning.

The greens think that unicorns and rainbows and my pretty ponies all in a row will magically appear and the wood fairies will come and splash star dust in peoples eyes and we will suddenly accept as many asylum seekers as want to come here. The idea that this will cause social strife they say is a myth. Instead, we should all just hold hands and wish the world better.

Bob Katter stood up in this debate and I wept. I did. Boat people can stay on the boats he said. They are self smugglers he said. His is a conservative view he said. He also likes curry.

The coalition policy is not Nauru. Let’s not be tricked here. All Nauru is is a detention center in another country filed out of the way of TV cameras and human rights lawyers. The REAL policy is that of turning back the boats.

Let’s take a little view on what that actually means. See Bob Katter said he thinks the government Malaysian solution only caters for 800 people or 30% of the expected asylum seekers for a year. He claimed that this means its a 70% chance of coming to Australia. He should be interested in these little stats then.

In 2001, after the coalition began to turn back the boats, 68 boats are recorded as arriving. Boats that launched and failed to arrive are not recorded. The coalition policy is to turn back the boats where it is safe to do so. They turned back 4 boats in 2001. Three of those boats sank, including SIEVx with 353 souls on board. To use Bob Katter’s percentage thing, well 4 out 72 boats were turned back meaning 94% of the boats got through. Bob did not seem to say anything about it at the time.

Of those arriving on Nauru, the coalition like to claim use a statistic that reports 30% of Asylum seekers sent to Nauru were returned home. This is a deceptive. It implies that the asylum seekers sent to Nauru were not all genuine refugees. This is NOT the case. The coalition offered those on Nauru money to return to the countries. Most refused. Some accepted after months in detention. Of the 50 odd that did, 20 were reported to have died within 3 months of their return.

Phil Glendenning from the Edmund Rice Centre told ABC’s The World Today on June 13 that sending refugees to Nauru was disastrous: “Just because one solution [has] got massive problems like those in the Malaysia solution, it doesn’t mean that Nauru doesn’t. I think anyone calling for the reopening of Nauru has forgotten the history.”

Glendenning followed up on several Afghans deported back to Afghanistan under Howard, and later documented that many were later tortured or killed: “There were 42 unaccompanied minors, children, sent back into the war zone that was Afghanistan.

“We know that 11 of those people [who were sent back] were killed and I believe that number is far higher – well in advance of 20 including children,” he said.

“Terrible atrocities were done to people out of Nauru that I would be staggered to think that Nauru would be a solution.”

Of 1,500 odd processed on Nauru and Manus, 839 where relocated to OTHER COUNTRIES. This included Sweden and Norway where the captain of the Tampa was a hero. Canada took a humanitarian intake. And New Zealand took 200 over the period including 150 directly off the Tampa. The remainder came to Australia. What the coalition like to call 43% of the original number. Stats are wonderful. Of the 1500 odd processed, 32 were found to be non refugees, but where given humanitarian protection going to Canada and New Zealand. The BULK of the asylum seekers were genuine asylum seekers. Zero percent turned out to be terrorists.

Now while the wait on Nauru was long an frustrating, it did not stop the boats. What stopped the boats was the turning back. Those that were returned to Indonesia had no agreements. Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN convention. It has a huge asylum seeker problem itself. And those that returned and avoided drowning were thrown on the shores and dumped there. Yes Mr Abbott. Your policy is a ‘people dumping’ policy as well.

So what has the ALP come up with? The loss of life re the boat returns is something they find unacceptable. So how do you turn boats around (where safe to do so) and not risk life? Can this be emulated someway? The thing that people were repulsed about is this random 800 thing. It was ridiculed in the media. But how is that ANY different then the coalition turning back boats where safe to do so? Remember! In 2001 of 72 vessels, the coalition turned back just four.

Instead of being dumped onto Indonesia Howard style, Chris Bowen has attempted to negotiate a level of assurances for the treatment of the asylum seekers. Yes Malaysia is not a UN human rights convention signatory. But this agreement offers the same protections. And yes, Malaysia has the cane for some criminal offences. America has the death penalty. I assume if you do not kill anyone when you are visiting America, you wont be executed by the government there. Same if you don’t break the laws in Malaysia I would assume.

But what Bowen has ensured is health, education, work, and 100% less drowning.

So that’s the coalition’s beef about the government policy and the government’s beef about the coalition policy. And of course the other thing that is bandied about is which is the most cost effective <insert cost benefit analysis here to please anal retentive capitalists>.

Well move over suckers! I have created the solution to stop the boats! It’s not only just humane, it is animalistic in its humane-ity. Yes. I make up words. And yes, this solution is supposed to be a joke.


The solution is simple. Shoot them when they get here. This should act as a deterrent for others also seeking to come and this will therefore stop the boats. It also puts them out of their misery of having to live amongst a nation of xenophobes.

All processing is done on shore, which should please the Greens. Andrew Bolt can run a picture a day of an execution along side why he hates islam posts. Since you kill them as they get here, you can now dismantle all those detention centres and you also solve the problem of long processing times and the problem of children behind razor wire.

Think of all the money we save! I am sure the coalition will be happy with the cost benefit analysis and the government will be happy with a solution that is acceptable by all.

What? Not happy with my solution? It is the most humane. it will stop the boats. It is the cheapest solution. And it will please the racists in the community.

As the coalition like to say. It’s a win – win.

Ask yourself Australia. How humane can we go?

PS. If my solution did not revolt you, then ask yourself why not

A. Ghebranious  2011  (All Rights Reserved)

  1. Jennifer Baratta permalink

    Wow! and I thought my politicans were selfish rude and insincere jerks

  2. ok good blog but unfair to the Greens we had no offshore processing for Vietnamese refugees they were processed here integrated into society which did not collapse as a result –

    • That is not the issue I am afraid. When people say climate change is real, they mean it. Senator Heffernen quoted in the senate some chilling facts. If the science is correct he said, by 2050, due to loss of arable land and fresh water as a result of climate change, the projected number of displaced people was expected to number 1.6 billion from a world population of 9 billion. That’s over 10% of the worlds population. I in 10 of us. While an open border is the most kindest of all, with no policy to deter in place, this will create angst in the community that already is prepared to come to blows over a fraction of these expect numbers.

      Also, with the ALP plan,I believe the intention is to do just that – community placement as opposed to detention where possible. But it is unlikely the kind of policy that will win them points by announcing it in the current mood around asylum seekers. Don’t get me wrong, I reckon most Aussie would love it and accept it. They just dont want to hear talk about being asked to accept as that reminds them of those they choose to reject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: