on 15-01-2014 10:32 PM
Indonesian authorities have quoted the asylum seekers on board saying Australian navy personnel fired shots as part of the operation to turn around the boat carrying 25 people.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-turns-back-asylum-seeker-boat-from-i...
Solved! Go to Solution.
16-01-2014 06:32 AM - edited 16-01-2014 06:35 AM
If you are disturbed by the current governments purported actions then
CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MEMBER, YOUR ELECTED DELEGATE AND VOICE YOUR CONCERNS..... DO NOT TAKE
NO FOR AN ANSWER.
When you and I (ie the public) delegates power to a political representative, it creates a
reciprocal duty that the politician must use that entrusted power in the sole, exclusive interest of the public.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Tellingly, new members of Parliament have cautioned against ''Fortress Australia'' in their maiden speeches, making the case for new arrivals and new markets. Clare O'Neil, Labor member for Hotham, described how immigration has ''brought more than 150 cultures'' to Australia peacefully.
Angus Taylor, Liberal member for Hume, said Australia ''must boldly expound and stay true to a narrative that explains the benefits of openness'', which includes a ''generous humanitarian program''.
Clearly, ''Fortress Australia'' bears multiple meanings, whether we think about trade, immigration, or border protection.
But they are all related.
Militarising some of the issues and some of the discourse may not be a constructive development.
It may not help Australia's diplomatic and civil-military relations.
It may not help Australia's openness to trade and immigration, which is vital to continued competitive advantage in the global economy.
But as long as any government continues to treat Operation Sovereign Borders as a military campaign, we should continue to assess its strengths and failures as such.
One would hope militarisation has not been pursued in order to control the flow of information. At the end of the day there are human beings on these boats. Their ''on water'' stories will emerge. It just might be that many have fled countries undeniably at war to join the long list of migrants who have helped build and shape Australia for the long term.
on 16-01-2014 06:44 AM
on 16-01-2014 07:04 AM
Where does it say they were firing shots at people?
on 16-01-2014 07:09 AM
what goes up must come down... Do you think they may have been shooting at seagulls.
If a bloke is standing in a paddock and I fire a gun OVER his head .... then more than likely i would be charged with
attempted murder.
A case in point..... when a driveby shooting is committed and the only thing shot is the houses roof.
If the perpetrators are discovered what do you think they will be charged with?
on 16-01-2014 07:10 AM
on 16-01-2014 07:13 AM
Right on icy, it is standard proceedure to fire across the bow of a boat that is transgressing Australian waters if they won't stop for boarding or won't turn round.
There is nothing notworthy in this until someone is reported as saying the navy was firing AT them, which would not be the case.
16-01-2014 07:16 AM - edited 16-01-2014 07:16 AM
@darksideofthemoon wrote:Right on icy, it is standard proceedure to fire across the bow of a boat that is transgressing Australian waters if they won't stop for boarding or won't turn round.
There is nothing notworthy in this until someone is reported as saying the navy was firing AT them, which would not be the case.
If we were at war it would be..... however If the boat is in international waters then it is an act of piracy as is boarding a
vessel and forcibly moving the boat to another position
Would 90 nautical miles from Bathurst Island be considered international waters???
on 16-01-2014 07:21 AM
On top of that if a boat has reached australian controlled waters then it behoves the navy boat to accept any plea for
asylum and duly assess it as per the convention that our government has agreed.
on 16-01-2014 07:27 AM
on 16-01-2014 07:31 AM
It is so predictable that people jump to conclusions that they want to believe without doubting the originating source.
Has it not occurred to anyone that it is in the interest of a failed unlawful entrant to falsely claim that shots were fired?