NationStates Jolt Archive

One day you are a doctor, living and working in Australia. The next, you are in a detention centre, visa revoked, publically demonised, and future uncertain because a friend of a friend of a terrorist borrowed your SIM card.

W
T
F
?

Actually, in all honesty, I think it is brilliant. The perfect way to sidestep somebody's rights in Australia is to effectively render them an illegal immigrant (for those that don't know, illegal immigrants have just slightly fewer rights than a toadstool here). Strip a terrorist of his visa, and suddenly you have carte blanche (literally, the law is blank on what is and isn't allowed there).

The question that I ponder is can and will they strip an accused terrorist of citizenship?

I think there was a long thread on this recently. I thought it was kinda strange, though governments being that cautious doesn't really surprise me.

Citizenship not only in my country, but over the whole world is under threat. because of this 'terrorist' hysteria. To be a 'citizen' is becoming more and more meaningless, and entitles one to less and less economic and political rights as it should.

This has just assured that my federal election voting preferences will put Liberal candidates last.

You blame the libs? You think that by putting them last, you will have offset the problem? I tell you now, with full confidence, that labour, the democrats, the Greens, Socialist Alliance, Unity party, and one Nation would all take up this torch if they were elected into office. Without a doubt.

I think they do take it too far, but again you cant belive the media because they blow things out of proportion and also have a bias, mainly to making money. So blowing up this is a grand way to make money. Truthfully id prefer they'd fuck over an innocent in precaution then having 100,000 people blown up at the G on grand final day or some such event.

Some days, I wish some wild-eyed nutter would just blow me up and get it the fuck over with.

The other thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533018) Neu did it well, with a link and all. This thread is superfluous.

EDIT: I guess it's time for my nap. I'm not seeing the ball at all well.

I think they do take it too far, but again you cant belive the media because they blow things out of proportion and also have a bias, mainly to making money. So blowing up this is a grand way to make money. Truthfully id prefer they'd fuck over an innocent in precaution then having 100,000 people blown up at the G on grand final day or some such event.

It's not so much the fucking over of the individual that is the problem, but rather how they are doing it. Being able to arbitrarily revoke visas to strip individuals of rights is, sorry fass, 'gay'. One does not need to go so far to ensure reasonable security and safety for all.

Some days, I wish some wild-eyed nutter would just blow me up and get it the fuck over with.

The other thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533018) Neu did it well, with a link and all. This thread is superfluous. Actually, I'd expected this to have been done extensively by now, and was merely commenting in relation to it.

By the way, the purpose of this thread is to question the potential risk placed upon citizenship given recent events showing visas are no longer worth the paper they are printed on. Having a purpose= Not superfluous. Dick.

You blame the libs? You think that by putting them last, you will have offset the problem? I tell you now, with full confidence, that labour, the democrats, the Greens, Socialist Alliance, Unity party, and one Nation would all take up this torch if they were elected into office. Without a doubt.

Oh come on, can you honestly see Bob Brown talking tough on terrorism and security issues, let alone their far-left counterparts in the Socialist Alliance?

I think they do take it too far, but again you cant belive the media because they blow things out of proportion and also have a bias, mainly to making money. So blowing up this is a grand way to make money. Truthfully id prefer they'd fuck over an innocent in precaution then having 100,000 people blown up at the G on grand final day or some such event.

"The Media" in Australia is owned by only three parties: Packer (big Liberal donor), Murdoch (big Liberal donor), and Fairfax. And Howard is in the process of attacking the media cross-ownership laws that prevent ownership of a newspaper and a TV station in the same city, basically in order to break Fairfax up and sell it off to his two buddies (or their sons).
Yet even the Herald Sun (it's got "Sun" in the title, you know it's tabloid) has published articles acknowledging how piss-weak the Government's case is.
The fucking-over of this innocent is yet more racist scaremongering from Howard in (surprise!) an election year.


"Of course I will be called racist, but if I can invite who I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say on who comes into my country."
Pauline Hanson, 1996

"We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come."
John Howard, 2001

Pauline Hanson = Racist (according to John Howard)
John Howard = Not racist (according to John Howard)

George Orwell is weeping in his grave.

Actually, I'd expected this to have been done extensively by now, and was merely commenting in relation to it.

By the way, the purpose of this thread is to question the potential risk placed upon citizenship given recent events showing visas are no longer worth the paper they are printed on. Having a purpose= Not superfluous. Dick.

Well, the other thread is well put down in its grave, while the issue isn't.

I retract the suggestion that this debate should be continuing there. Gravedigs are a really bad idea, since anyone who does the right thing and reads the thread right through is prone to reply to posts that the poster has forgotten making.

But there are good links and good posts there, and I think it's fair to link to the thread.

I could drag over a summary of the better posts if anyone is interested?

"The Media" in Australia is owned by only three parties: Packer (big Liberal donor), Murdoch (big Liberal donor), and Fairfax. And Howard is in the process of attacking the media cross-ownership laws that prevent ownership of a newspaper and a TV station in the same city, basically in order to break Fairfax up and sell it off to his two buddies (or their sons).

Fairfax was in bad trouble a few years ago. The heir to John Fairfax, Warwick, went off to business school (I think in Britain) came back and nearly wrecked the company.

Luckily, there are decent journalists still (who will never work for Packer, let alone Murdoch) and there are loyal readers of Fairfax media. The company isn't easy meat really.

Yet even the Herald Sun
Ah! Victorian, are you? In Sydney, our News Corp mouthpiece is the Terrorgraph. Previously, the Sun Telegraph. Before that, two papers, the Daily Sun and the Daily Telegraph.

(it's got "Sun" in the title, you know it's tabloid) has published articles acknowledging how piss-weak the Government's case is.
The fucking-over of this innocent is yet more racist scaremongering from Howard in (surprise!) an election year.

I was going to object that Haneef has not been tried yet, and may be guilty. Then I saw the wisdom of your choice of word. Damn right, innocent ... until proven guilty.

"Of course I will be called racist, but if I can invite who I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say on who comes into my country."
Pauline Hanson, 1996

"We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come."
John Howard, 2001

Pauline Hanson = Racist (according to John Howard)
John Howard = Not racist (according to John Howard)

That's good. With links, it would totally own.
Yeah, just a style point really. It's damn good.

George Orwell is weeping in his grave.

I doubt it. He had his say, the man scribbled away like a demon. It's not his fucking problem any more.

Yet even the Herald Sun (it's got "Sun" in the title, you know it's tabloid) has published articles acknowledging how piss-weak the Government's case is.

One of the rare times which I would read the Herald Sun (I prefer the Age).

Well the elections are coming this year and the polls seem to be holding now putting Labor 10% ahead of the government, and no matter the extraordinary or strange rabbit Howard seems to pull out, be it aboriginal intervention or tough on terrorism with Haneef, the polls seem to be holding, and thus Howard is getting desperate. I imagine this immigration thing with Haneef will only be the first in a long ling of political stunts in the coming months.

One of the rare times which I would read the Herald Sun (I prefer the Age).

The Age = Fairfax Melbourne.
Sydney Morning Herald = Fairfax Sydney.

Just for any furriners who's confused.

Paradoxically, the Australian is not too bad, and it's News Corp. (As is the Times of London.)

I fear Murdoch above them all, because he's subtle. "FOX news" ... he was called "the Fox" long before that US station existed. He cracks jokes while cracking heads and cracking markets ... an evil genius I think.

The Age = Fairfax Melbourne.
Sydney Morning Herald = Fairfax Sydney.

Fairfax Adelaide = ..... We don't have one :(

I read The Advertiser in the morning, but usually just so I can laugh at the people who write in. I remember recently reading a letter which consisted of someone complaining about how the army aren't police, and that using them as such is un-australian. Personally I think that considering the amount of peacekeeping we do and have done, that using the army as police isn't as un-australian as this person believes.

Editorials/Opinions are my favourite part of the newspaper just because of some of the strange things people say in it.

I have to say that whenever I read the Herald Sun I stay away from Bolt's stuff, bleh.

I only read the Telegraph with my one brown eye!

Editorials/Opinions are my favourite part of the newspaper just because of some of the strange things people say in it.

I have to say that whenever I read the Herald Sun I stay away from Bolt's stuff, bleh.

Bolt is atrocious, as are most conservative columnists who occasionally appear on Lateline and rant about terrorism or something. In my local state paper the Mercury (Murdoch group) their are opinion bits for issues, and some guy saying that people accused on terrorism (like Haneef) deserve no legal protection, anyway it kinda went from their somehow to attacking the Labor party and 'the left', really weird.

Fairfax Adelaide = ..... We don't have one :(

I read The Advertiser in the morning, but usually just so I can laugh at the people who write in. I remember recently reading a letter which consisted of someone complaining about how the army aren't police, and that using them as such is un-australian. Personally I think that considering the amount of peacekeeping we do and have done, that using the army as police isn't as un-australian as this person believes.

You should write in yourself, if it's as easy as that to get published.

I wrote to my regional paper twice, and once they published my letter. Unaltered, it directly criticized the bias of their front-page story ("Filthy junkies threatening our kids" or some shit), argued for harm-reduction and referred the reader to Needle Exchange (the forerunner of the far more controversial Injecting Rooms.)

My respect for the rag went up several notches.

I also wrote to my local paper once, they published that unaltered too. But they publish anything (three pages of letters.)

----------------

To your point: the army and the police are fundamentally different. If the commanders order a soldier to shoot an Australian citizen, they are supposed to do it. Police are constituted differently, which isn't to say they won't shoot you. But they're only supposed to do that in the course of doing a clearly defined job. Soldiers can be used at the discretion of the government (they'll declare a state of emergency, or a state of war or whatever, they can do it.)

It's like the difference between Federal Police and State Police ... only more so.

Outside our country, our army can act as police. Someone else's police.

That's good. With links, it would totally own.
Yeah, just a style point really. It's damn good.

Hanson: www.paulinehanson.com.au/pauline-maiden-speech.pdf

Howard: www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069522662977.html
Curiously I'm unable to find a transcript of the actual speech.

and Howard on Hanson @ www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/01/1062403447717.html

I'm not gonna bother trying to find evidence that Howard doesn't consider himself racist - he's hardly going to admit otherwise!

One of the rare times which I would read the Herald Sun (I prefer the Age).

Oh, I didn't actually touch one - it was on the floor of the train, doing the best thing any tabloid paper can do: soaking up piss. The screaming headline "SIM dim link" was unavoidable though.

To your point: the army and the police are fundamentally different. If the commanders order a soldier to shoot an Australian citizen, they are supposed to do it. Police are constituted differently, which isn't to say they won't shoot you. But they're only supposed to do that in the course of doing a clearly defined job. Soldiers can be used at the discretion of the government (they'll declare a state of emergency, or a state of war or whatever, they can do it.)

It's like the difference between Federal Police and State Police ... only more so.

Outside our country, our army can act as police. Someone else's police.

Fair enough, I'm not sure but I think there was more to the letter that was really ignoring all the important work we do that got me worked up about it. I also remember one of the times somebody got into the section about a specific topic (which in this case was about changing the DST time period), and in their actual letter only mentioned it in passing and went off on a rant about how Adelaide is playing copycat to the eastern states with everything and that we should get our own city so to speak.

The thing is - the UK said the evidence against him was flawed, as they were ones who had terrorists blowing stuff up in their country. The government's case is on quicksand legally, held up by the abuse of it's executive powers.

Even the best papers dumb down the front page. Judge a paper by what's inside it.

Being a confused, equivocating old tripper, I have to qualify that: unless they have a huge scoop which will run for weeks. Then the front page story tries to tell all that can be told. "We said it first" sells papers.

And even quite crap papers do good reporting. When they have the scoop (one of their reporters or an exclusive source breaks the story) their work is judged by other journalists / editors. Then they show a bit of pride in their work.

Investigative reporters are alive and well. They're called "bloggers" now. But a salary and assurance of column-inches and priveleged access to managed sources gives a reporter a fallback from really investigating, and that spells the end of the mainstream media as anything but filler between the ads.

Every time a story breaks "on the internet" is another nail in the coffin. All the papers have left is "authority" and it's increasingly false authority.

I'm wandering off-topic ...

It's not so much the fucking over of the individual that is the problem, but rather how they are doing it. Being able to arbitrarily revoke visas to strip individuals of rights is, sorry fass, 'gay'.

Your "excuse" for your homophobic and bigoted comment is not only feeble, but also transparent in allowing the sort of person you've allowed yourself to sink into being to shine through, making what could otherwise only be caught fleetingly now quite apparent indeed. Do not think for one second that your insincere "sorry" is enough to mask the ugliness of it.

One day you are a doctor, living and working in Australia. The next, you are in a detention centre, visa revoked, publically demonised, and future uncertain because a friend of a friend of a terrorist borrowed your SIM card.

W
T
F
?

Actually, in all honesty, I think it is brilliant. The perfect way to sidestep somebody's rights in Australia is to effectively render them an illegal immigrant (for those that don't know, illegal immigrants have just slightly fewer rights than a toadstool here). Strip a terrorist of his visa, and suddenly you have carte blanche (literally, the law is blank on what is and isn't allowed there).

The question that I ponder is can and will they strip an accused terrorist of citizenship?

Shhhh! Dick Cheney and his puppet Bush will make notes.

Bolt is atrocious, as are most conservative columnists who occasionally appear on Lateline

Why do you say things like this? If what they say on Lateline, with Tony Jones asking the questions offends you, imagine what they say in their own columns.

See, that's the problem. You can only imagine what they might say, because you can't bear to read it.

Though I have some sympathy for your media predicament. The Mercury is an appalling paper, not so much in its bias and innacuracy, but in it's omissions. It speaks clearly of what Murdoch is capable of, without meaningful competition. I suppose you'd get the Age if you tried, though.


and rant about terrorism or something. In my local state paper the Mercury (Murdoch group) there are opinion bits for issues, and some guy saying that people accused on terrorism (like Haneef) deserve no legal protection, anyway it kinda went from their somehow to attacking the Labor party and 'the left', really weird.

Honestly, didn't I cover this above?

Write to your paper. Aim for the right length without editing. Don't try to widen the issue beyond what the paper covers. Use short sentences. Rip 'em a new one, and remember: even the editor wants to sleep at night. If your letter is perfect, they have no reason not to print it.

Try to get it right first time (after the first few tries, you become a serial pest to the Letters department). give your real name (even if you want it witheld) and every way you have of contacting you. Wrap your grenade with a nice bow of politeness.

"Letters to the Editor" are a somewhat quaint but relatively uncorrupted part of the news business. Perhaps they fear that you may one day be famous, and not publishing your letter will reflect badly on their paper. Or perhaps it's an archaic sop to freedom of speech.

At the end of the day, it's just a letter in the paper. But trust me, it makes you feel better.

Shhhh! Dick Cheney and his puppet Bush will make notes.

Bush never took notes. Wtf are YOU smoking ?

Bush never took notes. Wtf are YOU smoking ?

Well, even then, Cheney will, and he'll tell Bush. Both my parents are immigrants (legal) from India, so I have a lot to lose.

Well, even then, Cheney will, and he'll tell Bush. Both my parents are immigrants (legal) from India, so I have a lot to lose.

Well, Haneef is not an Australian citizen. He was here on a visa.

(And yes, I have an issue with that. Sure, doctors are well paid, but interns are not. Nor are trainee nurses. They work shifts, they work forced overtime, they don't have the kind of protection from their union (AMA, though not called a union) as full doctors do. Their careers, for which they have already studied (IIRC) six years at top dollar for, are at the mercy of the hospital or practice they work for. I don't have a problem with foreign students paying to study (non-citizens, with a visa) for medical degrees, but that they have to work in our hospitals under those conditions to become qualified doctors is ... think about it ... different. We have interns doing real medical work for less than a doctor's wage, particularly in hospitals. That can only lead to more doctoring being done by trainees on far lower wages, as our education system expands with full-fee paying students. I think the same thing happens in the law.)

I'm assuming both your parents are citizens of your country now. That's different from being a "guest worker," living and working in country on a visa. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's just a guess.

On the other hand, the sacred Constitution of the US makes a distinction between US-born and naturalized citizens. For instance, that only a "US-born" citizen can become President. That's a wedge which could be used to divide Citizens into two classes, one with more rights than the other.

Yes, you're right to be concerned. But my joke stands: Bush didn't never take notes. He did doodles and tried to look down the blouse of the girl in front of him in class.

Well, Haneef is not an Australian citizen. He was here on a visa.

(And yes, I have an issue with that. Sure, doctors are well paid, but interns are not. Nor are trainee nurses. They work shifts, they work forced overtime, they don't have the kind of protection from their union (AMA, though not called a union) as full doctors do. Their careers, for which they have already studied (IIRC) six years at top dollar for, are at the mercy of the hospital or practice they work for. I don't have a problem with foreign students paying to study (non-citizens, with a visa) for medical degrees, but that they have to work in our hospitals under those conditions to become qualified doctors is ... think about it ... different. We have interns doing real medical work for less than a doctor's wage, particularly in hospitals. That can only lead to more doctoring being done by trainees on far lower wages, as our education system expands with full-fee paying students. I think the same thing happens in the law.)

I'm assuming both your parents are citizens of your country now. That's different from being a "guest worker," living and working in country on a visa. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's just a guess.

On the other hand, the sacred Constitution of the US makes a distinction between US-born and naturalized citizens. For instance, that only a "US-born" citizen can become President. That's a wedge which could be used to divide Citizens into two classes, one with more rights than the other.

Yes, you're right to be concerned. But my joke stands: Bush didn't never take notes. He did doodles and tried to look down the blouse of the girl in front of him in class.

I get the joke. You're right about them being naturalized. But my dad works as a doctor in private practice, and my mom has to work to make ends meet.

I think this issue actually puts on light on the chronic underfunding our universal national health care system, Medicare, has endured for 11 years while Howard did everything we could through trying to bride people into PAYING for healthcare in dodgy American-like private deals.

I think this issue actually puts on light on the chronic underfunding our universal national health care system, Medicare, has endured for 11 years while Howard did everything we could through trying to bride people into PAYING for healthcare in dodgy American-like private deals.

Almost 600 spent on private health care I haven't used yet this year.
I really hope I don't have to use it.
Goes up every year, which annoys me more. The 30% rebate was supposed to reduce premiums.

Oh come on, can you honestly see Bob Brown talking tough on terrorism and security issues, let alone their far-left counterparts in the Socialist Alliance?

I can see Bob Brown doing a lot of things scarier than that. Bob Brown is a deeply disturbing man. I'd be physically upset if here were in a position of power (as opposed to my usual indifference). Not only because the economy is gone, but also because of the overwhelming uncertain fear that comes with a man like him getting power.

Your "excuse" for your homophobic and bigoted comment is not only feeble, but also transparent in allowing the sort of person you've allowed yourself to sink into being to shine through, making what could otherwise only be caught fleetingly now quite apparent indeed. Do not think for one second that your insincere "sorry" is enough to mask the ugliness of it. What.. really?

If all he did was loan a sim two friends removed, I'm sure they wouldn't have been able to arrest him.

Evidently the police knew that one of the bombers called him to say that the plot had failed, and then he fled the UK.

Advanced knowledge of a plot, even if you aren't directly involved in it (say, no more than loaning a sim card) is against the law if you don't report the plot immediately.

If all he did was loan a sim two friends removed, I'm sure they wouldn't have been able to arrest him. But that is just the thing; with the extension of their anti-terrorism powers they can do whatever they please.

Evidently the police knew that one of the bombers called him to say that the plot had failed, and then he fled the UK. That isn't evident, and if it was true, every politician in Canberra would be screaming about it begging for the world to lift their arses of the hot coals.

Advanced knowledge of a plot, even if you aren't directly involved in it (say, no more than loaning a sim card) is against the law if you don't report the plot immediately. However, there is no evidence of advanced knowledge. There is only evidence of him passing his sim card over to his cousin when he left UK.

What.. really?

Ya, rly.

Evidently the police knew that one of the bombers called him to say that the plot had failed, and then he fled the UK.
Besides, he wasn't even near UK when the attacks took place, and wasn't in possession of the card either. He's been living and working in Australia for a year.

Then, one day, his entire life is turned upside down, and his visa cancelled, because his dick cousin used his old sim card in his jihad shenanigans.

However, there is no evidence of advanced knowledge. There is only evidence of him passing his sim card over to his cousin when he left UK.

They have the phone call before he left the UK - from one of the bombers after the cars in London failed to detonate.

Just calling to say, "Hey, have a nice flight!", right?

Ya, rly.
Oh...

So are there any meds for homophobia, or do I just need to get a dick in my arse?

Oh...

So are there any meds for homophobia, or do I just need to get a dick in my arse?

*waits for Fass to complain to the mods and get GPN deated*

Oh...

So are there any meds for homophobia, or do I just need to get a dick in my arse?

Don't flatter yourself.

Don't flatter yourself.
<.<

...

Right. So anyhow, long time no see. Good to see you are still here, when I left you were tossing up the notion of departure, I believe.

Well, the venom is as sharp as ever. To tell you the truth, I'd be disappointed if it had dulled.