Archive for September 2011
A crime not for the squeamish
We have recently had a very high profile murder case in the papers: one crook killed another crook in prison. Lots of front page coverage and analysis of the machinations of the underworld.
Today I came across a case that really shocked me. A man filling his car with petrol suddenly takes the hose and sprays petrol INSIDE the car then sets his partner slight after stabbing her in the neck. It gets worse.
‘Vile and horrendous’: petrol killer in court
Clearly this murderer had a few problems. More than a few problems, one could suggest. How on earth did this man function at all?
The Judge’s description of the murder as “such a bad murder, such a bad murder” is probably the understatement of the decade, reading the case.
Related articles
- ‘Barbaric’ killer could get life (heraldsun.com.au)
Tony Abbott – do not do it!
Good grief, what politicians will do to win power. One of the benefits of living in Australia, at least I believe it is still a benefit, is the right to criticise our politicians, even if we are of the same persuasion!
While Mr Abbott continued to condemn the Malaysia option, the carrot for him is that the proposed changes would ensure as prime minister he could send people to Nauru.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-muddies-water-on-boats-20110912-1k63e.html#ixzz1Xn2wbdfj
Furthermore:
A separate change would also ensure the minister could send children offshore without having to establish this was in their best interests.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-muddies-water-on-boats-20110912-1k63e.html#ixzz1Xn37Hz84
No. Definitely not.
May I remind ALL politicians of the requirements of the International Refugee Convention as discussed by Michael Pearce:
Withdrawal from Refugee Convention may be last resort
At first I thought, “What? We can’t do that!” then I read the article. Michael takes an extremely pragmatic approach to the debate, together with presenting a fresh perspective.
Public policy in Australia seems to have reversed the legal position. The major parties and public opinion seem to say that we should refuse refuge to those who reach our shores and seek asylum because that denies refuge to those in the so-called queue. That is, we should abrogate an obligation which is legally binding on us so that we can comply with an imagined obligation by which we are not, in fact, bound.
Michael goes on to say (emphasis added):
This course will no doubt be very unpopular in some quarters and for good reason. It would signal to all that we, one of the richest countries in the world with enviable space and resources to spare, did not want to share with the bedraggled and desperate few who, by good fortune, wash up on our shores. But this is only to tell the truth about who and what we are as a people.
Would that more people listen to people like Michael.
Why this desire for off-shore processing? What exactly does it achieve? Why the desire to send unaccompanied children off-shore? What does that achieve?
Chris Bowen needs to read some history.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said unaccompanied minors presented ”very emotional and difficult issues”. ”The overriding obligation is to say to parents, ‘Do not risk the lives of your children to get the prospect of a visa in Australia.’ ”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-muddies-water-on-boats-20110912-1k63e.html#ixzz1Xn5AF2xs
Parents don’t send unaccompanied children in order to get a visa – they send them to save their lives. What of all the unaccompanied children sent here from England many years ago? Was that OK because they were English? I actually work with a woman who is friends with a person who was sent by their parents to Australia to save that (then) child’s life in precisely the same way children are being sent now. Unless Mr Bowen is totally oblivious to the realities of life, he knows in his heart if he were faced with the same decisions some of these parents are faced with he would do EXACTLY the same thing. So would any parent. Do not make glib comments in the media to try to paint parents as being in the wrong for trying to save their children.
Australia MUST remove the guardianship of these children from the position of Minister for Immigration. It is hard to imagine a greater conflict of interest existing. How this came about is beyond comprehension.
Quizzically Musing 