Just when I thought politics in Australia couldn't get any worse...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Halifax

The Fly
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
236
Location
Australia
Hanson plans return to politics. theage.com.au

Pauline Hanson has ruffled a few feathers with the announcement yesterday she was planning a return to federal politics and would campaign about industrial relations laws and the ease with which Muslims and "diseased" Africans were entering Australia.

"I've been on about water for many, many years - but also immigration," she said.

"Why shouldn't Australians know that the people we bring in to this country are there for the right reasons, and we bring them in for the right reasons?

"Why do we have to bring people in who are of no benefit to this country whatsoever, who are going to take away our way of life, change our laws?

"And I'm asking these questions. And it's about time someone dam well did, because the federal government is not addressing the concerns of the Australian people."

'They've got AIDS'

Ms Hanson also said she was concerned by the ease with which people were able to gain Australian citizenship, especially Muslims and Africans.

"We're bringing in people from South Africa at the moment, there's a huge amount coming into Australia, who have diseases, they've got AIDS," Ms Hanson told AAP.

"They are of no benefit to this country whatsoever, they'll never be able to work.

"And what my main concern is, is the diseases that they're bringing in and yet no one is saying or doing anything about it."

A Department of Immigration spokeswoman rejected the claims, saying stringent health checks were carried out on all permanent and temporary residents.

Refugee groups were angered by Ms Hanson's comments, calling them "fanciful", damaging and hurtful to Africans who were simply trying for a life in Australia.

But Ms Hanson said politicians had gone too far in affording rights to minority groups and she was angered at the loss of Australian traditions because of Muslims.

"Our governments have bent over backwards to look after them (Muslims) and their needs, and regardless of what the Australian people think," she said.

"You can't have schools not sing Christmas carols because it upsets others, you can't close swimming baths because Muslim women want to swim in private, that's not Australian."
 
What a country of choice, we are. Rudd, Dickface, Hanson...Do we get spoiled or what, guys?? Well???

Someone needs to teach Pauline how to speak. You know, in an Australian way.
 
*sticks fingers in her ears and hums very loudly*
Maybe if I ignore her, she'll go away.... I bet she couldn't even make a decent batch of fish & chips. :madspit:
 
I love how Pauline Hanson goes on about these people from Africa being of no benefit to the country when she ignores the blindingly obvious: if anyone is of no benefit to this country, it is HER. Can we classify racism as a disease and kick Pauline out of the country and send her to, oh I don't know, a deserted island off the coast of Antarctica?
 
I'm all for not letting people into this country who are of no benefit to the economy whatsoever. If they come here, they have to work and cannot live off the government. And if they have AIDS they shouldn't be let in full stop. Surely we all agree on that? I'm all for immigration and multiculturalism but there must be limits and we can't let the floodgates open. Some of her policies make complete sense although it sucks that she's obviously a closet racist otherwise I'd vote for her.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
I'm all for not letting people into this country who are of no benefit to the economy whatsoever. If they come here, they have to work and cannot live off the government. And if they have AIDS they shouldn't be let in full stop. Surely we all agree on that?

I don't agree with that. What if there are other circumstances, e.g. someone is moving with family members? Or shall we just say "OK, great, you and your wife and your son can come and work here, but you have to leave your AIDS-infected daughter to fend for herself in Botswana"?

And why is their admittance ultimately based upon their economic benefit? There are many other benefits that people can offer, and I don't see why economic benefits trump those. They should be considered, of course, but even if someone does not offer this country an economic benefit, there may be an array of other benefits they can offer and those should be given equal consideration.
 
Open immigration is great, it's just a problem when there is a system of government support for immigrants and their families.
 
Not letting people with AIDS into Australia is pathetic. What are they going to do, cut themselves and bleed on everybody? I mean maybe if it was contagious like SARS, but AIDS is not easily caught so its a MOOT argument even.

and I FUCKING hate when they say its 'not australian' well im a fucking australian, and i think what Pauline Hanson is saying is bunch of bullshit and she needs to shut her big fucking mouth and stop making assumptions about other australians. Perhaps shes been hanging round the RSL halls for too long.

I just hate that some people think Australia stands for -biogeted racist christian white missionary lights out people, when CLEARLY this is not a country like that..

*shudder*
 
There is no need for you, Pauline. Go back to Dancing With TEH STARS. You are not needed, as John Howard has taken your constituency.

Dazzlingamy, Australia stands for whatever John Howard says it stands for. I'm sorry you didn't get the memo.

John Howard stands for the best of both worlds, and the best thing is none of it adds up or coheres in any fashion:

He is WITH the white supremacists (in this case, let's apply a modernised version of white, where Chinese, Vietnamese etc, are to some extent admitted to the club, but Middle Eastern and African are out of the club).

He stands up for social conservatism, both the overtly valuable and decent parts, and the ugly and destructive parts. In a lip-service kind of way, which is all that is needed.

At the same time he stands up for all that let-the-market-rip luvviness that is surely the one thing guaranteed to destroy 'family values' in this country, as in any other.

Again, Pauline, you are not necessary. John took the ball and ran with it.
 
If not letting somebody into the country who has AIDS prevents him/her from spreading the disease to just ONE other person through intercourse, well then I'd say we've done a good thing. It's far too risky to say 'Ok just don't have sex with anyone.'

From a 'hippy/love everybody don't care about reality' standpoint, sure we can just let everybody in who doesn't contribute to (EDIT) economic growth. But in reality, if they do not contribute more than they expend in the form of welfare etc.etc. then they shouldn't be let in as they'll only slow Australia down. I'd love to hear what anybody here would do if you were in a position of power and you had to make these decisions. I get the impression everybody is just trying to prove they are 'soooo not racist' by being overly generous and unrealistic/unpragmatic in their views on immigration.
 
Last edited:
So, basically, the value of someone is ultimately determined by their contribution to GDP, this entirely trumps whatever else they may have to offer, and any dissenting opinion is from a "hippie/love everybody don't care about reality" standpoint?

Wow. I didn't think anyone was quite that cold.

And in any case, the indicative use of GDP isn't perfect. If you must reduce people to whether they generate an economic profit or not, at least don't just rely on one marker.
 
Economic growth is an all encompassing measure which includes quantitative (GDP) and qualitative measures such as quality of life etc. to determine growth of the economy. If a migrant comes in and cannot work or cannot find any way to increase economic growth, they shouldn't be let in, it is regression.
Economic growth is not simply a financial measure, it's very complex. Anyway, say if you were in a position of power (which is a role you MUST assume in order to rebuke the actions of people that ARE in a postion of power), what would you do and justify it. I am by no means a cold person, I'm trying to be a realist.
 
Last edited:
AIDS is not a health risk, if you practice safe sex (and i believe anyone who doesn't carries the burden of whatever happens to them, unless in extreme circumstances like rape etc) so only if you decide to share a needle, or practice unsafe sex are you going to possible get AIDS from them. There is no other way someone with AIDS can infect someone so to not let in someone with AIDS is stupid and not even a vaild point.

Secondly, while i dont think immigrants should be able to recieve financial benefits for the rest of their lives purely for being refugees/immigrants, i do believe they should have the same access to everything and support and money to help set up a home for themselves here. We're not talking about millions of dollars per family, just enough to help them get on their feet to be ABLE to contribute to society. I don't think putting every single person to work will help anyway (and what about stay at home mums, people with severe trama etc)
Yes taxes are shit, but we are all in this world together, and you gotta do what you gotta do. And i'd rather my taxes go towards a Sudanese family who no longer have to live through war/torture and fear every moment of their lives, then to some stupid fcking commonwelath games or other commercial bullshit.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
If not letting somebody into the country who has AIDS prevents him/her from spreading the disease to just ONE other person through intercourse, well then I'd say we've done a good thing. It's far too risky to say 'Ok just don't have sex with anyone.'

From a 'hippy/love everybody don't care about reality' standpoint, sure we can just let everybody in who doesn't contribute to (EDIT) economic growth. But in reality, if they do not contribute more than they expend in the form of welfare etc.etc. then they shouldn't be let in as they'll only slow Australia down. I'd love to hear what anybody here would do if you were in a position of power and you had to make these decisions. I get the impression everybody is just trying to prove they are 'soooo not racist' by being overly generous and unrealistic/unpragmatic in their views on immigration.

Maybe Hanson does have a constituency out there..

Hmmm:eyebrow:
 
dazzlingamy said:
AIDS is not a health risk, if you practice safe sex (and i believe anyone who doesn't carries the burden of whatever happens to them, unless in extreme circumstances like rape etc) so only if you decide to share a needle, or practice unsafe sex are you going to possible get AIDS from them. There is no other way someone with AIDS can infect someone so to not let in someone with AIDS is stupid and not even a vaild point.


You can't guarantee that the person will always use a condom (many people with AIDS even in our Western society don't I've heard, I don't know why and it baffles me) so I don't see the point (from a perspective of someone in power) in letting a person in who will live out the rest of his life just absorbing medical costs and likely unable to work due to his disease. If you had a choice, surely you'd let the healthy migrant into the country who is capable of working and more than happy to work like the rest of us rather than someone with AIDs or someone who just wants to mooch off our system?
 
all_i_want said:


Maybe Hanson does have a constituency out there..

Hmmm:eyebrow:

Hanson is a racist and whatever credible points she has are overshadowed by her ignorant/racist/biggoted ideals.
A racist is someone who doesn't like a particular race for absolutely no reason, and in no way could you get the impression I'm a racist (if that's what you're implying) from reading my posts.
 
I love how all these white supremacists have forgotten their own immigrant heritage. I'm sure the aboriginal peoples could have a few words with her.
 
Also you'll find that Christianity is quite prevalent in Africa, and Christians strongly dissapprove of the condom which means if for example, we consider taking in a migrant from Africa who has AIDS there's a good chance his faith will prohibit him in practicing safe sex here and the disease will spread. Christianity kills (another issue altogether though)
 
Well whatever Pauline Hanson may be, she has succeeded in her aim of gettin' folks talkin' about the subject of disease, in particular AIDS and the presumably dirty folks who have it (if indeed she had an aim beyond publicity).

On the topic of challenging the powerful, in no way do I agree that you have to adopt their viewpoint and agree with their premises and find a replacement solution (unless, perhaps, you are the leader of the Opposition). They are put there to serve us, and us, the messy rabble, have all sorts of viewpoints.

Being a realist isn't all it's cracked up to be, because the recent history of our world suggests to me that at least some people in power are in no way realistic, in their motives or their policy execution. Don't believe everything you hear in How The World Works 101.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
Also you'll find that Christianity is quite prevalent in Africa, and Christians strongly dissapprove of the condom which means if for example, we consider taking in a migrant from Africa who has AIDS there's a good chance his faith will prohibit him in practicing safe sex here and the disease will spread. Christianity kills (another issue altogether though)

What a load of rubbish. From the kernel of truth (the unpopularity of the safe-sex message among men in some African countries, which I think you'll find has as much to do with machismo as with any Christian doctrine), we leap by magnificent bounds to a new basis for immigration policy.

You do realise, that by your logic we should refuse any immigrant from Africa, right? After all, AIDs ain't the only nasty STD.

Or any Christian? After all, Christianity kills (another issue altogether).

I thought it was Islam that kills. I'm so confused.
 
I don't approve of just casting aspersions on decisions made by people in positions of power. It makes no sense to me to simply show no empathy and rule out understanding their perspective and not come up with any alternatives of your own if you were them.
 
Kieran McConville said:


What a load of rubbish. From the kernel of truth (the unpopularity of the safe-sex message among men in some African countries, which I think you'll find has as much to do with machismo as with any Christian doctrine), we leap by magnificent bounds to a new basis for immigration policy.

You do realise, that by your logic we should refuse any immigrant from Africa, right? After all, AIDs ain't the only nasty STD.

Or any Christian? After all, Christianity kills (another issue altogether).

I thought it was Islam that kills. I'm so confused.

AIDS is the deadliest disease - other STD's im not familiar with but they will pale in comparison to the devastating effects of aids. Why would we let AIDS infected people into the country that will just absorb medical and other welfare costs (like I said before) and is very likely not going to work and contribute to economic growth? And they can risk spreading the disease to other Australians. Justify it if you had to make the decision.

I raised the point of many africans not using condoms because of Christianity to provide an example of how it can be spread in our society if we let them migrate. And yes in that sense, Christianity can kill which is another issue.
AIds can also be spread if they are simply unwilling to use the condom for whatever reason (it happens) and IMO it's not worth the risk.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
Why would we let AIDS infected people into the country that will just absorb medical and other welfare costs (like I said before) and is very likely not going to work and contribute to economic growth?

A Department of Immigration spokeswoman rejected the claims, saying stringent health checks were carried out on all permanent and temporary residents.

Well, then, it looks like your fears are unfounded.
 
dazzlingamy said:
Secondly, while i dont think immigrants should be able to recieve financial benefits for the rest of their lives purely for being refugees/immigrants, i do believe they should have the same access to everything and support and money to help set up a home for themselves here. We're not talking about millions of dollars per family, just enough to help them get on their feet to be ABLE to contribute to society. I don't think putting every single person to work will help anyway (and what about stay at home mums, people with severe trama etc)

:up: Totally agree with you. But there are many cases (I even know of 2 I know who come into my work) where immigrants purely take advantage of our relatively VERY generous system and do not contribute to society. It angers me as it would anyone here.
 
Last edited:
Political choice in australia has gone downhill since the day Natasha Stott-Despoja quit (or was forced out) as leader of the Democrats. :huh: She's just about the only politician that i've had respect for in this country for a very long time.
The only positive I can see in the future is if Peter Garrett develops into a strong leader within the Labor Party.
And did anyone see the tv tonight with ulia Gillard being criticised for her hairstyle and dress sense? Seriously, is that what the public really care about in a female politician?:madspit:
And don't even get me started on Pauline Hanson!!!:|
 
But see, would you rather this person die out in a file din Africa from the disease, or live a relativly long life out here in Australia. I don't think we can pick and choose who we accept in this country. A perso with AIDS is really no different to someone who has diabetes. You can't catch AIDS, i do not see the big deal? :shrug:
 
Well I'll be the first American to jump in this thread, which I think is OK, given that we get your kind (joke!) in our threads all the time. This is thread really interesting, I didn't know much about Australian politics. We have a few American politicians I'd like to throw onto that Antartican island with this woman.


AussieU2fanman said:
Also you'll find that Christianity is quite prevalent in Africa, and Christians strongly dissapprove of the condom which means if for example, we consider taking in a migrant from Africa who has AIDS there's a good chance his faith will prohibit him in practicing safe sex here and the disease will spread. Christianity kills (another issue altogether though)

It's not Christianity, first of all, it's Catholicism, which is somewhat prevalent but by far not the only factor. It's a conbination too of a macho attitude, of poor information dissemination and of unfortunately a great many bits of misinformation. It's cultural, beyond religion. But people who a) choose to emmigrate and b) begin living in another country show a few things. They show a willingness to leave their culture and join a new one, and they are prefectly eager to learn new customs. I've worked with refugrees waiting for "repatriation" as they call it - waiting for their number to come up so they can get into a Western country. They want this so badly and they are willing to open their minds to new cultures and practices. And largely it's a matter of poor education on the issue; once corrected (easily by the new country) this goes away.
 
dazzlingamy said:
But see, would you rather this person die out in a file din Africa from the disease, or live a relativly long life out here in Australia. I don't think we can pick and choose who we accept in this country. A perso with AIDS is really no different to someone who has diabetes. You can't catch AIDS, i do not see the big deal? :shrug:

IF they do not spread the disease (impossible to regulate and guarantee) and IF they can work and contribute to society then I'm all for it! That's most likely not the case, and I don't see the option of letting them in being justified on anything but compassionate grounds which is not the way a government works. The government doesn't want to let in migrants with AIDS and spend X dollars on them with medical/welfare costs whilst contributing nothing and risk them spreading disease. It makes no sense.
And apparantly, the government refuses entry to AIDS people already which makes my argument pointless because they agree with me.
 
Back
Top Bottom