Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

From The Financial Review.

Most of the people attempting to come to Australia on fishing boats are economic refugees seeking a better life. Moreover, they are from families with the means to pay for passage. They are neither the poorest nor the most vulnerable from the societies they leave behind.

The Government’s current approach to stopping them is expensive, vulnerable to developments in partner countries outside our control, and distracts the Navy from its primary purpose. Moreover, it lacks compassion and treats foreigners as something to be feared rather than as potential contributors to our society. There is a huge opportunity for mutual benefit for economic refugees and incumbent Australians.

The solution is to open the front door and allow them legal entry upon payment of a fee.

This idea originates from the recently deceased Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK.

What he proposed is for the government to set a price according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists.

In the Australian context the fee should be set at a level that makes it more attractive than paying a smuggler after taking into account the risk of drowning at sea, detention upon arrival and being deported. While an auction may be the best way to discover the right price, around $50,000 seems about right.

Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.

He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting “a free ride”. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for. Indeed, at the current level of immigration, a fee of $50,000 would generate about $10-15 billion annually.

Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees. Under this approach, rather than lose your voice at a rally in support of refugees, you could put your money where your mouth is and solve the problem yourself.

Businesses that are looking for specialist skills could also cover entry fees to ensure the supply of highly-skilled workers.

However, the system would only work if payment of the fee entitled people to permanent residence, not welfare payments (unemployment, etc). Such payments should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.

The system would ensure intending migrants were well aware of the need to gain employment on arrival. The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.

Those unable to find work may have their permanent residence cancelled and be subject to deportation. Short term assistance could be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.

Allowing immigration subject to payment of a fee would also provide a more moral basis for detaining and deporting illegal and unauthorised arrivals, should they still occur. For economic refugees, the obvious message is to stay home and save until you have the money to come legally.

This proposal would not disrupt our relationship with New Zealand, which allows Australians to live and work in New Zealand and vice versa. Indeed, there is a good case for establishing similar agreements with other countries that share our values, such as the UK, Canada and Japan.

It also need not disrupt working holiday agreements or temporary residency for skilled workers and tourists. The only people affected would be those who seek to live in Australia permanently.

It is time Australians recognised the significant contribution that immigrants make to our country and the prosperity that accompanies free trade and the free movement of people. It’s time to open the front door.

David Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrats’ Senator-elect for NSW.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,495 Responses to Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

1 8 9 10
  1. Gab

    If there was an explosion of niqab/burka crime here, then I might think different. It would be different if the covering was worn by men.

    Ah so the “equality before the law” is just bullsh!t then?

  2. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1341963, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm
    You are describing cultural Marxism. Ask any of the libertarians here what their position on the list above is.

    I did. And I was called a racist!

    Yeah, that was the reason why.

  3. Fisky

    I’d like some French examples. That’s the place in which we’re trying to justify the law.

    There is no need for French examples. It has already been shown that people are prepared to use the burka to commit crime, and, more to the point, there is no justification for externalising the costs of burka-wearing on society. It wastes time and money to accommodate.

  4. Gab

    They are ‘snickering’ are they? Is that supposed to make me act or feel in a certain way?

    Quite. One could never accuse you of rhetoric or hyperbole ever.

  5. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1341965, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:59 pm
    [...]
    Ah so the “equality before the law” is just bullsh!t then?

    The issue is: we are proposing an interference with the liberty of individuals. I am not some anarcho-Capitalist; I’m more of a libertarian consequentialist/classical liberal. If there was a clear threat, then I might be convinced to support such a ban. But I don’t believe there is. I am presenting a counter-factual in which there might be such a threat. The truth is, women don’t usually commit violent crimes, and Muslim men don’t wear the burqa. But if both men and women wore the burqa, then the law would apply equally to both (even still if it were just men).

    There should be no restriction where individual businesses want to exclude people with face coverings, in my opinion.

  6. Fisky

    No Dot, Honduras does NOT have dual recognition of the PRC and ROC. Honduras has no embassy in Beijing while it does maintain an embassy in Taiwan. See here:

    The Honduran government looks likely to switch its recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), saying that it respects the “political principle of ‘one China’” and that it has never considered a policy of dual recognition.

    In a four-point statement published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Honduras on Friday, the Central American country, whose diplomatic ties with the Republic of China date back to 1941, said its relationship with China has been developing for some months.

    Honduras said that not interfering in a country’s internal affairs was a guiding principle in bilateral relations and that it would not accept conditions of any nature from another country regarding its external relations.

    In Taipei, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lin (林永樂) said yesterday that the ministry remained confident that Taiwan retains normal and solid diplomatic ties Honduras.

    “I can guarantee 100 percent that [Honduras’ shift in allegiance to Beijing] is a non-issue,” he said.
    The Honduran statement followed Lin’s remarks on Tuesday that Taiwan will not accept that its political allies adopt dual recognition of Taiwan and China.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/12/30/2003551333

    Honduras might have just learnt the hard way what the LDP refuse to learn on this thread.

  7. Gab

    The issue is: we are proposing an interference with the liberty of individuals.

    Stop changing your point of view around. Pick a position and stick to it. On one hand, people have to remove bike helmets by law to enter a bank and you’re fine with that but you’re not fine with people not removing face coverings for “religious” reasons or “cultural” reasons. In fact, you are saying the law should not recognise equality becuase of the lame “cultural” excuse.

  8. Fisky

    Again –

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/foreign-affairs/2012/12/26/365290/Honduras-dual.htm

    TAIPEI, Taiwan — The foreign minister yesterday stressed that the Taiwan government would not accept Honduras’ double recognition of China and Taiwan amid reports that the Central American ally would soon open a trade office in Beijing, a move that could signify the first step toward establishing formal ties with the mainland.

    Asked to comment if the statement means the ally is considering exploring diplomatic relations with Beijing while maintaining ties with Taipei, Lin said firmly that the Taiwan government would not accept double recognition.

  9. Gab

    By the way, when you say “we”, Aristo, do you mean the LDP? Are you their spokesperson?

  10. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341967, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:59 pm
    [...]
    There is no need for French examples. It has already been shown that people are prepared to use the burka to commit crime, and, more to the point, there is no justification for externalising the costs of burka-wearing on society. It wastes time and money to accommodate.

    Well, mutatis mutandis, you could outlaw alcohol and fatty foods using the same set of propositions. I start from a position where the citizen is free to choose, and am only willing to intervene where there is a good reason (not an example elsewhere which may or may not be relevant, nor some pontification about costs and some hand waving about externalities).

  11. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1341977, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm
    By the way, when you say “we”, Aristo, do you mean the LDP? Are you their spokesperson?

    I mean as in “here we are proposing”, and it is meant to refer to you and whoever else is proposing such a measure.

  12. .

    No Fisk, you said ANY dual recognition would not be brooked by PRC.

  13. Fisky

    Well, mutatis mutandis, you could outlaw alcohol and fatty foods using the same set of propositions.

    Yes, but the purpose of secularism in France is not to improve people’s health. It is to uphold the rights and duties of citizens and to ensure that nothing prevents their access to the public domain, which is a legitimate, core function of the state.

  14. Gab

    I mean as in “here we are proposing”, and it is meant to refer to you and whoever else is proposing such a measure.

    Perhaps you could be brave enough to just speak for yourself then and not on behalf of other interlocutors.

  15. .

    BTW Fisk Taiwan did not follow up that threat.

    Do more research.

  16. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1341975, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:07 pm
    [...]
    Stop changing your point of view around. Pick a position and stick to it. On one hand, people have to remove bike helmets by law to enter a bank and you’re fine with that but you’re not fine with people not removing face coverings for “religious” reasons or “cultural” reasons. In fact, you are saying the law should not recognise equality becuase of the lame “cultural” excuse.

    This is dishonest rubbish, Gab. I’ve made my position clear upthread, and it’s pretty consistent. Anything besides snark and misrepresentation?

  17. Fisky

    No Fisk, you said ANY dual recognition would not be brooked by PRC.

    I read nothing to the contrary in the media, because the PRC did not apparently issue a press release. What did happen is that the ROC stated clearly that they would never allow dual recognition. I think what likely occcurred is that Honduras explored the possibility of opening up a trade/investment office in Beijing below the level of formal recognition, and the ROC responded by drawing a red-line to ensure that Honduras’ real intentions were not to go further.

    But that’s how real-politik works, and I wouldn’t expect most LDP members to have a strong grasp on it.

  18. Matthew

    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

  19. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1341983, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    [...]
    Perhaps you could be brave enough to just speak for yourself then and not on behalf of other interlocutors.

    It’s a pretty common turn of phrase. I’m not getting into another semantic argument with you. It seems you are capable of little else.

  20. .

    What?

    You’ve just been proven wrong Fisk.

    Just man up and admit it.

  21. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1341988, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

    This is as stupid as anything you’ve written here.

  22. Fisky

    BTW Fisk Taiwan did not follow up that threat.

    Of course they didn’t, because Honduras has not opened an embassy in Beijing (see if you can find it on Google Maps!), and never will until they break formal relations with Taiwan. You haven’t the faintest

  23. .

    Matthew
    #1341988, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

    Since we already have 400,000 Muslims in Australia, you are actually agitating for a police state.

    You turkey.

  24. Fisky

    Let’s go over this again – there is no Honduras embassy in Beijing. And there won’t be until they sever ties with Taiwan.

  25. Matthew

    No Fisk, you said ANY dual recognition would not be brooked by PRC.

    Just to be clear there isn’t dual recognition. Unless you can perceive reality it is impossible to have any discussion with you.

  26. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341982, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    [...]
    Yes, but the purpose of secularism in France is not to improve people’s health. It is to uphold the rights and duties of citizens and to ensure that nothing prevents their access to the public domain, which is a legitimate, core function of the state.

    You’ve switched from an economic to a moral or consequentialist argument.

  27. Fisky

    And finally the truth is out – the LDP have been beclowned again.

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/intl-community/2013/07/01/382559/No-change.htm

    Kao played down speculation that bilateral ties had been compromised and were tilting in favor of rival China after Taiwan declined to meet a request for increased financial assistance.

    The Honduran government is yet to send a replacement after former Ambassador to Taiwan Mario Alberto Fortin Midence was called back home for a new assignment in May.

    There has been speculation that Honduras is planning to open a trade office in China later this year to advance economic ties with Beijing. The Central American nation currently has no formal official relations with China.

    All cooperation projects between Taiwan and Honduras have been proceeding as planned and there have been no cases of Taipei rejecting requests for increased financial assistance, said Florencia Hsie, deputy director-general of MOFA’s Department of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs.

    “There is no change in bilateral relations,” she said.

    Hsie also said that Taiwan has formally expressed its hope to Honduras that a new ambassador will be selected as soon as possible.

    The Honduran Embassy’s minister plenipotentiary, Alejandro Yang Portillo, has been performing ambassadorial duties since the return of the former ambassador, Hsie said.

    There are multiple considerations that must be factored in when appointing a new ambassador in personnel changes, Kao said, and it is common for nations to designate specific officials to temporarily perform diplomatic duties.

    Paraguay, another Taiwanese ally, has recently assigned Ambassador Marcial Bobadilla to Taipei, Kao said.

    When interviewed by local media, Foreign Minister David Lin has also stressed that there will be neither changes nor problems in Taiwan-Honduras relations.

  28. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341982, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    [...]
    Yes, but the purpose of secularism in France is not to improve people’s health. It is to uphold the rights and duties of citizens and to ensure that nothing prevents their access to the public domain, which is a legitimate, core function of the state.

    Identify the relevant rights and duties of affected by the ban on face coverings in public by the French with reference to their particular circumstances.

  29. Matthew

    This is as stupid as anything you’ve written here.

    Go ahead and rebut it then. If it’s stupid then it should be easy.

    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

    Humiliate me.

  30. Gab

    It’s a pretty common turn of phrase. I’m not getting into another semantic argument with you. It seems you are capable of little else.

    lol code for I called you on your trying cover by using the “we” of crowds as a means of your appeal to “authority”.

    It seems you are capable of little else.

    Run with the foxes, hunt with the hounds.

  31. Fisky

    You’ve switched from an economic to a moral or consequentialist argument.

    I’m happy with both – no costs are imposed on would-be burka wearers by banning the burka on public space. But the public itself gain through fewer road accidents (the burka impairs peripheral vision), faster processing times at public offices, and an in reinforcing the correct and excellent values of civic equality on which the Republic was founded.

  32. Matthew

    Since we already have 400,000 Muslims in Australia, you are actually agitating for a police state.

    I mentioned female genital mutilation and I never mentioned Muslims nor Islam in this context, not a single time.

    You are saying that 400 000 Muslims practice FGM. That is quite the Freudian slip there, Dot. It seems like you have internalised racial prejudice.

  33. Gab

    You call it snark, Aristo when I call you out for changing your tune on things.

    On one hand you say westerns are compelled to follow the law, on the other hand you say people wearing burkas do not have to follow the law for removal of face coverings in matters of secutiry due to “cultural” issues.

    Are you capable of not contradicting yourself or do you need to refer to your “we” collective?

  34. Demosthenes

    Assimilation is just about the opposite of multiculturalism. I’m not sure that your position is far from tomix’s at all.

    It’s not my position. It’s the position of Australians as a whole, based on dozens of opinion polls. As ever, those who assume they are part of a “silent majority” or similar, tend to be part of a noisy minority.

  35. Fisky

    Identify the relevant rights and duties of affected by the ban on face coverings in public by the French with reference to their particular circumstances.

    Obviously, allowing people to wear the burka (or a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet) in the public domain undermines the principles of civic equality, by allowing one party to conceal not only their facial expressions which convey a great deal of communication, but also to some extent mechanically the prosodic features of language (intonation) that convey extra meaning. This unduly, and without any benefit to society, disadvantages one speaker by disabling them from being able to read the intentions of their interlocutor.

    I stress, no benefits to society are provided by permitting the burka, but a number of identifiable costs are imposed.

  36. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1342002, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:22 pm
    This is as stupid as anything you’ve written here.

    Go ahead and rebut it then. If it’s stupid then it should be easy.

    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

    Humiliate me.

    It’s just not worth responding to Matthew. You start with the assumption, without any real evidence that FGM is or would be at some future time, of widespread practice in this country. Then, despite the practice being criminal, you assert that the lack of convictions for the offence (there are a couple of cases going to trial as we speak) prove that this widespread practice is not policed or the law not upheld. Then you propose that the only solution to this ‘problem’ is that there be a police state, perhaps where people’s genitals are inspected.

    It should suffice to point out the chain of reasoning to demonstrate why this is a complete nonsense. How about this: the problem is not widespread, and the lack of convictions indicate nothing more than that we have a functioning judicial system under which enough evidence must be presented of an offence for a finding of guilt to result. If you would propose evidentiary changes, or changes to the law itself, then I’m listening.

  37. Aristogeiton

    s/evidentiary changes/changes to the laws of evidence/

  38. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1342015, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:30 pm
    [...]
    This unduly, and without any benefit to society, disadvantages one speaker by disabling them from being able to read the intentions of their interlocutor.

    Oh come on. ‘Benefit to society’? That’s your lynchpin?

  39. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342011, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    You call it snark, Aristo when I call you out for changing your tune on things.

    On one hand you say westerns are compelled to follow the law, on the other hand you say people wearing burkas do not have to follow the law for removal of face coverings in matters of secutiry due to “cultural” issues.

    Are you capable of not contradicting yourself or do you need to refer to your “we” collective?

    Ignored for bad faith and lies.

  40. Gab

    lol you ought to ignore yourself then.

  41. Yobbo

    I really don’t know why dot keeps pushing this Taiwan thing. Beijing’s stance on the issue is hardly a secret. I don’t know who proposed the policy but I am going to write to the LDP and recommend it be removed.

  42. Fisky

    Oh come on. ‘Benefit to society’? That’s your lynchpin?

    Yes, I think the common good is a fairly important consideration when deciding on codes of behaviour in the public domain.

  43. Combine_Dave

    We should have bilateral relations with Taiwan, as well as mainland China.

    We do have. We just dont officially recognise them as China.

  44. .

    Yobbo I don’t care either way but Fisk is hysterical and not basing his comments on facts. He even reckons being proven wrong “beclowns” the party he is arguing with.

  45. Aristogeiton

    In order to counter Gab’s lies:

    Aristogeiton
    #1341960, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:57 pm
    [...]
    I don’t have a problem with the requirement in airports, banks, or indeed any place of business, provided in that case it is voluntary (i.e. “If I cannot see your face, you cannot enter”). If there was an explosion of niqab/burka crime here, then I might think different. It would be different if the covering was worn by men.

    So far as what I think of the practice, I think it is a disgrace in principle; men and women should have the opportunit be equal participants in civil society.

    And further:

    Aristogeiton
    #1341971, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:04 pm
    [...]
    The issue is: we are proposing an interference with the liberty of individuals. I am not some anarcho-Capitalist; I’m more of a libertarian consequentialist/classical liberal. If there was a clear threat, then I might be convinced to support such a ban. But I don’t believe there is.

    Perhaps use of ‘it would be different’ is injudicious. ‘It might be different’, for the reason that there would be more of a threat such as to justify an interference in liberty.

  46. Gab

    You forgot this bit of yours:

    I don’t think the ban is justified. I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

  47. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1342024, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:37 pm
    [...]
    Yes, I think the common good is a fairly important consideration when deciding on codes of behaviour in the public domain.

    I think it’s a weak reason and the same justification given by every statist ever. That said, this is not an issue I’d die in a ditch over. I understand the objection, and my personal belief is that full participation in civil society requires your face to be seen. But I don’t think my personal views should dictate the freedoms of others without some really good reasons why they should be interfered with. I don’t think that the good reasons exist. They might in the future, I don’t know.

  48. Yobbo

    Yobbo I don’t care either way but Fisk is hysterical and not basing his comments on facts. He even reckons being proven wrong “beclowns” the party he is arguing with.

    Fisk is not being hysterical at all. He is 100% correct.

  49. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342030, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    You forgot this bit of yours:

    I don’t think the ban is justified. I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

    Yes Gab. That is to say, the justifications provided are weak and are used to conceal the real purpose of the measure. To a libertarian, religious freedom is important and discomfit is not generally a good enough reason to deny the free expression of others.

  50. Fisky

    Yobbo I don’t care either way but Fisk is hysterical and not basing his comments on facts. He even reckons being proven wrong “beclowns” the party he is arguing with.

    The facts I am basing my comments on include, and are not limited to –

    -The reality that Honduras does not have dual diplomatic recognition of the two China’s
    -The reality that the official policy of the ROC is not to accept dual recognition (which renders the LDP’s policy entirely irrelevant)
    -And the reality that this is the PRC’s position too, which it has never contradicted anywhere

  51. Fisky

    I think it’s a weak reason and the same justification given by every statist ever.

    I would be very surprised to read anyone claiming that the state does not have a legitimate interest in upholding respect for, and equal access to, the public domain.

  52. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1342036, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:50 pm
    I think it’s a weak reason and the same justification given by every statist ever.

    I would be very surprised to read anyone claiming that the state does not have a legitimate interest in upholding respect for, and equal access to, the public domain.

    Oh come on. This is just sophistry.

  53. Gab

    To a libertarian, religious freedom is important and discomfit is not generally a good enough reason to deny the free expression of others.

    Please don’t presume to speak on behalf of all Libertarians.

    You are just using weasel words. You don’t agree with the ban based on “cultural” factors but you agree the ban is right for anyone else covering their face and entering places of security-sensitive nature provided there are no” cultural” issues. Prior to that, you agreed that all were equal before the law.

  54. Fisky

    To a libertarian, religious freedom is important and discomfit is not generally a good enough reason to deny the free expression of others.

    Which presumably extends to wearing motorcycle helmets in banks, public offices and airports?

  55. Gab

    Which presumably extends to wearing motorcycle helmets in banks, public offices and airports?

    Only if religious issues are involved, apparently.

  56. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342039, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:52 pm
    [...]
    You are just using weasel words. You don’t agree with the ban based on “cultural” factors but you agree the ban is right for anyone else covering their face and entering places of security-sensitive nature provided there are no” cultural” issues. Prior to that, you agreed that all were equal before the law.

    This is a lie. I said no such thing. I proposed that private businesses should be able to exclude persons whose face is covered at their discretion. The same goes for police and airport officials who need to see individuals faces for the purpose of identification.

  57. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1342040, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    To a libertarian, religious freedom is important and discomfit is not generally a good enough reason to deny the free expression of others.

    Which presumably extends to wearing motorcycle helmets in banks, public offices and airports?

    Absolutely, if you bloody read what I wrote.

  58. Matthew

    It’s just not worth responding to Matthew. You start with the assumption, without any real evidence that FGM is or would be at some future time, of widespread practice in this country. Then, despite the practice being criminal, you assert that the lack of convictions for the offence (there are a couple of cases going to trial as we speak) prove that this widespread practice is not policed or the law not upheld. Then you propose that the only solution to this ‘problem’ is that there be a police state, perhaps where people’s genitals are inspected.

    It should suffice to point out the chain of reasoning to demonstrate why this is a complete nonsense. How about this: the problem is not widespread, and the lack of convictions indicate nothing more than that we have a functioning judicial system under which enough evidence must be presented of an offence for a finding of guilt to result. If you would propose evidentiary changes, or changes to the law itself, then I’m listening.

    Your answer doesn’t make any sense or even deal with the thrust of my argument.

    FGM isn’t widespread in Australia. I never said so. It is prevalent, sometimes overwhelming so, in some source countries for migrants and refugees into Australia. I also made no assertions about lack of convictions for FGM, no did I propose that the solution is a police state. How you reach this conclusion puzzles me. Here is what I wrote again.

    Aristogeiton, are you not concerned that it would take a police state to prevent FGM in Australia? Or do you want the anti FGM laws to be on the books, but be unenforced?

    Why be so dogmatic and put Australia into the position of either having to enforce a police state or ignoring crimes?

    We have migrants entering Australia, and some of them practice FGM. According the the FGM practitioners it is a sacred religious or cultural practice. Given this, and the fact that there is no way of ascertaining whether the female genitals have been mutilated short of inspecting the genitals, the only way to prevent the practice is to have a police state (which I am not in favor of), or ignore this particular cultural practice in the knowledge that it is in fact happening among these ethnic communities.

    My question then is why put Australia, and Australians through this? Why on one hand bring in people that will increase the prevalence of FGM in our community, while on the other hand antagonise ethnic communities that support FGM? Sure this kind of thing should just go into the too hard basket, and if we must have migrants for whatever reason, seek out immigrants with less baggage.

    This is why we find no agreement. You say the government shouldn’t change cultures, and yet government policy is the reason that we have FGM in Australia today.

  59. Gab

    This is a lie. I said no such thing

    So you don’t agree that all are equal before the law, or even should be. Fine. At least it’s all cleared up now.

  60. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342047, posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:57 pm
    This is a lie. I said no such thing

    So you don’t agree that all are equal before the law, or even should be. Fine. At least it’s all cleared up now.

    You are such a dishonest shit. The law applies to all. All of these proposed laws or changes to the law do. The loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public applies to all. We are talking about whether there is sufficient justification for such a general law.

  61. .

    No Fisk

    You have changed the definitions. You said ANY recognition, not diplomatic recognition.

    The ROC did not execute their policy as stated.

    The actual Chinese law would not mean they’d cut us off given what I said at 4:31 today.

    I don’t care for the policy much at all – I largely agree with Yobbo that it is mostly pointless, but you are being careless with facts, then declare the LDP is “dangerous” or some other nonsense.

    At worst the policy is facile, then you declare that ‘Australians will get hurt’ based on dubious evidence and your personal feelings as to what Hu Jin Tao will do tomorrow.

  62. .

    We have migrants entering Australia, and some of them practice FGM.

    So Matthew you already want a police state, given you think FGM is impossible to end without a police state.

  63. Gab

    I struggle with the loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public. I think the threat is completely overblown; were there examples of the face covering used to commission a crime? That said, as a human animal I judge the intentions of people by looking at their body language, and particularly their face. But the face covering is worn by women, who pose, generally, no physical threat to me. I don’t think the ban is justified. I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

    That was your reply in context when arguing about the need to ban face coverings when entering building, airports etc anywhere where security is of concern – the issue being discussed was the burka. Non-religious face coverings did not come into it, you didn’t agree with the ban on the burka in such instances and yet you were expounding all equal before the law prior to that. Sorry but I found your position to change around as the argument progressed and when I pointed this out you got upset. C’est la vie.

  64. Matthew

    At worst the policy is facile, then you declare that ‘Australians will get hurt’ based on dubious evidence and your personal feelings as to what Hu Jin Tao will do tomorrow.

    Australians will be affected by it. Partly through stricter visa rules on Australians going to China. You may say so what. I say it matters.

  65. Yobbo

    Are you aware that Hu Jintao resigned over 2 years ago?

  66. .

    Whatever Yobbo.

    “President of China”. The argument is still valid.

    I was right about the policy and the reaction to the policy.

    Matthew is simply making shit up, again.

  67. Combine_Dave

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

    The One-China policy (simplified Chinese: 一个中国政策; traditional Chinese: 一個中國政策 ; pinyin: yī gè Zhōngguó zhèngcè) refers to the policy or view that there is only one state called “China”, despite the existence of two governments that claim to be “China”.

    As a policy, this means that countries seeking diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) must break official relations with the Republic of China (ROC) and vice versa. Hence, all the countries recognizing the ROC recognize it as the sole legitimate representative of all of China and not just the island of Taiwan and other islands which it controls.[1] Similarly, all states that recognize the PRC either recognise the PRC as the legitimate representative of Taiwan or acknowledge the PRC’s views on the matter.[2]

  68. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342060, posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    [...]
    That was your reply in context when arguing about the need to ban face coverings when entering building, airports etc anywhere where security is of concern – the issue being discussed was the burka. Non-religious face coverings did not come into it, you didn’t agree with the ban on the burka in such instances and yet you were expounding all equal before the law prior to that. Sorry but I found your position to change around as the argument progressed and when I pointed this out you got upset. C’est la vie.

    It did not; it is entirely consistent. You are an extremely dishonest individual.

  69. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Wow! 2320 comments and still counting.
    Time to close the front door or just let ‘em still keep coming?

  70. .

    ???

    Dave – do you want me to restate my arguments again? Your mentioning of the wiki article is redundant.

    You could craft a policy that recognised Taiwan, but not as China, and not overtly independent.

    I agree it is largely facile.

    However Fisk’s hysterical “Australians will be put in danger” is just a silly smear.

  71. Matthew

    So Matthew you already want a police state, given you think FGM is impossible to end without a police state.

    Matthew mentions that some migrants practice FGM, and notices that given the personal nature of FGM it would be impossible to prevent FGM without a police state.

    Based on this you say that I want a police state. It is a non-sequitur. I don’t want a police state and I don’t want FGM. We should select immigrants with less baggage, as I wrote in my post above.

    I no longer think that you are deliberately misrepresenting my arguments, by the way. I’ve realized that you are simply incapable of understanding anything more than a simple sentence.

  72. Demosthenes

    Matthew, your logic can apply equally to domestic abuse. Hidden from public view, etc. Yet we deal with that without resorting to a police state.

  73. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1342078, posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:15 pm
    Matthew, your logic can apply equally to domestic abuse. Hidden from public view, etc. Yet we deal with that without resorting to a police state.

    If this is, or is to be, a massive problem, then:

    1) mandatory reporting by physicians of the procedure; and
    2) a reverse onus of proof,

    would deal with the problem just as well.

    Whether this would lead to children not getting medical attention &c is another real potential consequence. It is certainly an alternative to the ‘police state or nothing’ position of Matthew.

  74. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1342082, posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:18 pm
    With all this talk of burqas, this might help.

    What kind of burqa is this, Demos?

  75. Matthew

    Matthew, your logic can apply equally to domestic abuse. Hidden from public view, etc. Yet we deal with that without resorting to a police state.

    Cases of domestic abuse are not usually hidden. Quite often every neighbor knows about it (and call police). Signs of physical abuse are often present on visible parts of the body.

    Female genital mutilation on the other hand is performed on very young girls or babies on a very private part of the body. If you know of any method to detect this outside of inspecting the private parts I would be very interested to know.

  76. Combine_Dave

    Dave – do you want me to restate my arguments again? Your mentioning of the wiki article is redundant.

    You could craft a policy that recognised Taiwan, but not as China, and not overtly independent.

    I agree it is largely facile.

    However Fisk’s hysterical “Australians will be put in danger” is just a silly smear

    I don’t disagree. Is there a chance that the LDP’s policy can be slightly tweaked to avoid some manufactured outage on the part of PRC China (or ROC China) ?

  77. Matthew

    It is certainly an alternative to the ‘police state or nothing’ position of Matthew

    No, you are offering a false choice. What I asked you was –

    My question then is why put Australia, and Australians through this? Why on one hand bring in people that will increase the prevalence of FGM in our community, while on the other hand antagonise ethnic communities that support FGM? Sure this kind of thing should just go into the too hard basket, and if we must have migrants for whatever reason, seek out immigrants with less baggage.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

  78. Gab

    It did not; it is entirely consistent. You are an extremely dishonest individual.

    Sorry but the only dishonesty being carried on here is by you. And it’s not the first time.

  79. Fisky

    Libertarian priorities – relations with China bad, urinating on public property good!

  80. Matthew

    Is there a chance that the LDP’s policy can be slightly tweaked to avoid some manufactured outage on the part of PRC China (or ROC China) ?

    The only tweak possible would be for the LDP to retain the current bipartisan policy on Taiwan.

    The actual LDP policy cuts ties with Beijing in favor of ties with Taipei.

  81. Fisky

    shhh Matthew! We must avoid discussion of the LDP’s official stated position at all costs.

  82. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342095, posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    It did not; it is entirely consistent. You are an extremely dishonest individual.

    Sorry but the only dishonesty being carried on here is by you. And it’s not the first time.

    Utter bullshit, unless you consider ipse dixit a legitimate form of argument.

  83. Fisky

    Is it true that the LDP believe people should be able to walk around naked in public7?

  84. Yobbo

    We had a discussion about that on the LDP facebook page a few weeks ago. My view is that only attractive people should be allowed to walk around naked.

  85. Yobbo

    Because, you know, externalities.

  86. tomix

    Aristogeiton @ 7.18pm on FGM:

    If this is, or is to be, a massive problem, then:

    What do you mean?

    If you mean that even one Australian girl being forced to undergo FGM is not a “massive problem”,
    then how would you like to have your sex organs skinned, and reduced to a mass of unresponsive scar tissue for the rest of your life?

  87. tomix

    Demosthenes @ 7.15pm on FGM:

    Matthew, your logic can apply equally to domestic abuse. Hidden from public view, etc. Yet we deal with that without resorting to a police state.

    Raising ones voice to ones spouse is considered Domestic Violence and worthy of a DV Order in Qld.

    Are you comparing that to FGM?

  88. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    only attractive people should be allowed to walk around naked.

    Seems I’m in. I was doing same here in the chilly Northern Spring last night before bed with the central heating turned up. How’m I doing? I asked my male observer (Da Hairy Irish Ape himself, natch).
    Attractive, Lizzie. Definitely still attractive, he replied.
    Yippee.
    But don’t hold back on the central heating. Global warming it ain’t in the great Irish outdoors.

  89. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    [...]
    We had a discussion about that on the LDP facebook page a few weeks ago. My view is that only attractive people should be allowed to walk around naked.
    [...]
    Because, you know, externalities.

    LOL.

  90. Fisky

    Yobbo, I’m surprised that wasn’t picked up on by one of the media outlets. The intra LDP debates which are mostly conducted in public are rich pickings for journos looking to stir up trouble for David L.

  91. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342125, posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:53 pm
    [...]
    If you mean that even one Australian girl being forced to undergo FGM is not a “massive problem”,
    then how would you like to have your sex organs skinned, and reduced to a mass of unresponsive scar tissue for the rest of your life?

    That’s all very emotive. If your concern is with the disgraceful practice, as mine is, then where in the world is the girl most protected from the practice? Here, where it is criminal, or elsewhere, where it is condoned?

    So far as ‘massive problem’ is concerned, I mean widespread and such as to justify a police state, as Matthew seems to believe necessary.

  92. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Raising ones voice to ones spouse is considered Domestic Violence and worthy of a DV Order in Qld.

    But thankfully not in Sicily, or there could have been a few DV orders raised by Da Hairy Ape’s insensitive yelling at me last week to STFU Lizzie if you can’t be useful, when I was merely helpfully commenting on his driving techniques and providing navigational assistance (albeit incorrect) regarding the plethora of variegated signage he was trying to interpret at six-way intersections where rules were regarded by all road users as merely disposable suggestions.

  93. Cold-Hands

    It would be different if the covering was worn by men.

    How do you know it isn’t?

  94. Demosthenes

    Cases of domestic abuse are not usually hidden. Quite often every neighbor knows about it (and call police). Signs of physical abuse are often present on visible parts of the body.

    This is quibbling, and you know it.

  95. Matthew

    This is quibbling, and you know it

    No it isn’t. Domestic abuse is never a one time incident. It is something that is ongoing and continuous, and it’s fair to say that the police get involved in every case, or close enough to every case.

    Female genital mutilation is a one time affair. It affects a private part of the body. You tell me how FGM can be detected without examining the genitalia.

  96. Yobbo

    Fisky, the intra LDP debates you are talking about are conducted between members and fans, not the LDP executive itself. If the media wants to use that to smear the LDP I hope they don’t also forget to post the views of Liberal and Labor voters from facebook. Because generally, the LDP facebook fans are orders of magnitude more intelligent.

  97. Combine_Dave

    We had a discussion about that on the LDP facebook page a few weeks ago. My view is that only attractive people should be allowed to walk around naked.

    The LDP just keeps looking better and better.

  98. Yobbo

    BTW I have posted the Taiwan issue to the LDP facebook page and so far not a single person has disagreed with your view that it is a terrible policy.

  99. Demosthenes

    For the currently employed alternatives to the police state, see here.

  100. Aristogeiton

    Combine_Dave
    #1342170, posted on June 10, 2014 at 8:18 pm
    We had a discussion about that on the LDP facebook page a few weeks ago. My view is that only attractive people should be allowed to walk around naked.

    The LDP just keeps looking better and better.

    He was taking the piss, as I read it.

  101. tomix

    1. So, is it the responsibility of Australia to prevent FGM by admitting immigrants from countries that practise FGM?
    Matthew has nowhere said a police state is necessary. He asks why the problem should be brought here in the first place.
    How do you say laws against FGM can be effectively policed.

    2. So, if it happened to only one girl, for cultural and/or religious reasons, it wouldn’t be a “massive problem”?

  102. Matthew

    BTW I have posted the Taiwan issue to the LDP facebook page and so far not a single person has disagreed with your view that it is a terrible policy.

    Link please. I would like to see if any reasonable LDP supporters exist. I would also like to see if they use foul language like most of the LDP supporters here.

  103. Demosthenes

    No it isn’t.

    Yes, it is. Pick any other hidden crime if the parallels with domestic abuse are beyond you.

  104. tomix

    Demosthenes- How are you going to stop a girl being sexually mutilated by her own female relations in Australia?

  105. tomix

    By putting out a glossy gummint pamphlet, perhaps?

  106. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    The intellectual thrust of this guest post is shallow, populist and based on zero knowledge of Australia’s history as a settler society.

    We have ALWAYS been highly selective of our immigrant intake and for damned good reason.

    We (and the other great settler socieites built by the 1st and 2nd British Empries) are exceptionally good at taking foreigners and turning them into Australians.

    This is a process by which they abandon their historical grudges and communal tensions and become something they were not, before. Which is why the left hates it and has sabotaged it with multicultiralism, cultural and moral relativism.

    Cripes, we can even do this with Chinese, which is frankly amazing given the vast strength of their culture as evinced by individual Chinese.

    So I reject this argument.

    But it gets worse – it gets puerile:

    The Government’s current approach to stopping them is expensive,

    No, it is not. We spent ZERO DOLLARS on it up until 2008, it was a minor subset of teh fisheries protection task.

    You have conflated fixing a mess created by the imbeciles of the Rudd and Gillard years with the zero-cost option of maintaining the stable system we had before those idiots wrecked it.

    vulnerable to developments in partner countries outside our control,

    Bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks. The Indonesians were infuriated by what the ALP did as it greatly increased teh flow of illegals into their country. Now, it is ebbing, and fast. malaysia the same.

    and distracts the Navy from its primary purpose.

    More utter bollocks. The Navy’s primary role is the protection of Australian sovereignty. Been there, done that, got multiple T-shirts. What, in God’s name, do you think we actually have a patrol boat force FOR?

    The navy is doing what is called ‘maritime constabulary functions’, and these are the bread-and-butter peacetime missions. Always have been.

    Moreover, it lacks compassion and treats foreigners as something to be feared rather than as potential contributors to our society.

    So what?
    many foreigners ARE to be feared because they actually want to destroy us. Look up ‘Wahabism’ and ‘Salafism’. And maybe ‘Islamic terrorist’. The cold facts are that VERY FEW foreigners have the capability to actually be “contributors to our society”. The vast majority are too poorly educated or skilled to be of the slightest use to us. We have plenty of our own unskilled, ill-educated welfare losers to add new one. And if anyone is ‘owed’ the opportunity, it’s OUR OWN WELFARE LOSERS. Who we need to get off their arses and into a contributing role in our society. not a parasitic one.

    There is a huge opportunity for mutual benefit for economic refugees and incumbent Australians.

    nice bumper-sticker slogan.
    And about as meaningful and researched as one.

    And the odd thing is that you are actually correct and do not appear to understand why.

    This is correct when we carefully select the people permitted – given teh privilege – of coming here. And they had damned well better be of immediate contributory value to teh country, and be willing to become Australians.

    I have helped bring over two immigrant families, through the system. Both sets of parents told me teh same things.

    “We are making a deliberate value judgement that Australian culture and civilisation is far superior to our native one and we will contribute positively to Australian culture and civilisation.’

    And both have. They did from arrival.

  107. Matthew

    Yes, it is. Pick any other hidden crime if the parallels with domestic abuse are beyond you.

    No, it isn’t. The state can’t control someone that choses an abusive partner. In the case of domestic violence the people involved in it have a fair bit of agency. Domestic violence would only equate to FGM if the violence happened but a single time, and then was hidden. That is not what happens with domestic violence, however, and domestic violence usually comes to the attention of police.

    FGM happens one single time. There is no way to police against it and no non-invasive way to detect it. The girls affected by FGM had no agency and no choice in what happens.

  108. .

    Good to see you agree Dave.

    Fisk is intelligent but he is a pain in the arse because he likes to play those rhetorical games. Yes its important to get a sense of what the opponent will cast you like but it can be hard getting his real message through in those ciphers.

    I can’t believe Matthew is still promoting totalitarianism as a binary choice to zero FGM in Australia.

    “We must choose between child sexual abuse or a totalitarian state”

    “We must choose between more terrorism or a totalitarian state”

    etc.

    Fucking sickening crap.

  109. Matthew

    I can’t believe Matthew is still promoting totalitarianism as a binary choice to zero FGM in Australia.

    I was playing with a pair of real life monkey’s today, feeding them some mangos. They had a spark of intelligence in their eyes, the kind of spark that your eyes lack.

    I believe that they actually have better comprehension skills that you.

  110. A Lurker

    2. So, if it happened to only one girl, for cultural and/or religious reasons, it wouldn’t be a “massive problem”?

    I’d suggest that for the innocent girl involved it would indeed be a massive problem – or on second thoughts, possibly not, as the poor wretch would have been brainwashed by the culture to believe it is normal and acceptable. It would be only until she reached puberty that she’d comprehend just what an atrocity had been performed on her.

    I’ve read some pretty gut-wrenching accounts of FGM and the thing that shocks me is that female relatives who experienced FGM personally, actually support their menfolk in facilitating this atrocity. Which makes me think that these womenfolk are essentially culturally brainwashed – and given that families are entering Australia from countries where FGM is common place and culturally accepted, they’ll come to multicultural Australia thinking that this practice will be excused, or at the very least ignored, and thus it will continue.

    Multiculturalism is the issue – if new immigrants properly understood they were coming into a monoculture then perhaps it is less likely the ones who have the offending cultural practices would choose to come here in the first place – for at the moment multiculturalism seems to excuse so many cultural practices that just aren’t acceptable, and under current laws and PC’ness we’re prevented from really expressing our displeasure about what is going on.

  111. Notafan

    Thankyou Mk50
    Although fgm is just one aspect of a cultural conflict it also imposed a very significant health cost both with ongoing treatment of little girls with serious ongoing problems with incontinence and women who have serious additional problems giving birth.
    I would hope that in a couple of generations we might see an end to the practice in Australia.

  112. .

    We have plenty of our own unskilled, ill-educated welfare losers to add new one. And if anyone is ‘owed’ the opportunity, it’s OUR OWN WELFARE LOSERS.

    Which is precisely the point of the policy.

  113. .

    I can’t believe Matthew is still promoting totalitarianism as a binary choice to zero FGM in Australia.

    Yes you are Matthew.

    You laid down the parameters, you own this.

  114. tomix

    A Lurker @ 8.43pm:

    The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And if that hand was sexually mutilated as a child, she will likely be one very unhappy cradle rocker.

    FGM creates terrible generational problems, as has been shown in all the countries which practise it.

    Why should Australia take responsibility for the atrocity of FGM by accepting immigrants from countries that practise it?

  115. tomix


    I would hope that in a couple of generations we might see an end to the practice in Australia.

    How is that going to happen, notafan? By printing glossy pamphlets?

  116. .

    Why should Australia take responsibility for the atrocity of FGM by accepting immigrants from countries that practise it?

    We don’t.

    It is illegal with harsh penalties.

    It is extremely rare.

  117. tomix

    How do you know that, Dot?

  118. tomix


    Why should Australia take responsibility for the atrocity of FGM by accepting immigrants from countries that practise it?

    We don’t.

    Of course we do. E.g. Egypt and Somalia have over 97% FGM. Anyone from these countries would be almost certain practitioners>

  119. Matthew

    You laid down the parameters, you own this.

    No. I’ll say to you the same thing I said to Aristogeiton.

    My question then is why put Australia, and Australians through this? Why on one hand bring in people that will increase the prevalence of FGM in our community, while on the other hand antagonise ethnic communities that support FGM? Sure this kind of thing should just go into the too hard basket, and if we must have migrants for whatever reason, seek out immigrants with less baggage.

    No binary choice of FGM or a police state there.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

  120. .

    As I said earlier – it is very rare in Australia and subject to harsh penalties so we don’t take any responsibility for it – and besides you’re not going to get a lot of people from those countries with the $50k fee.

  121. Gab

    It is extremely rare.

    How would you know? Want to guess again?

    A SYDNEY mother stood in the dock holding her baby daughter as she became the first person in the state to be committed to stand trial for genital mutilation.

    Sheik Shabbir Vaziri is charged with being an accessory to the circumcision ritual, allegedly telling locals to lie to police about the prevalence of female genital mutilation in the community.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydney-sheik-mum-and-nurse-to-face-mutilation-judgment/story-fni0cx12-1226929222733

  122. Matthew

    #1342301, posted on June 10, 2014 at 9:37 pm
    As I said earlier – it is very rare in Australia and subject to harsh penalties so we don’t take any responsibility for it – and besides you’re not going to get a lot of people from those countries with the $50k fee.

    Not true. The LDP has a PAYG plan available, does it not?

    In addition there will always been employers seeking cheap labor for farms. They will front the 50k to migrants, and these migrants could end up in debt bondage while struggling to pay back the debt as they earn a pittance.

    This is a plan to benefit employers of cheap labor, while shifting the social and other costs onto the tax payers. It’s class warfare against the Australian workers and poor.

  123. .

    Gab – I assume you noticed this:

    the first people in NSW to stand trial for female genital mutilation

    It is rare. The co-accused immigrated here a long time ago.

  124. Matthew

    It is rare. The co-accused immigrated here a long time ago

    It’s rarely prosecuted because it is very hard to detect. You have to inspect the female genitalia to confirm it.

    Did you miss this?

    Sheik Shabbir Vaziri is charged with being an accessory to the circumcision ritual, allegedly telling locals to lie to police about the prevalence of female genital mutilation in the community.

    I take back what I said about low IQ illegal immigrants. It seems that low IQ LDP members are the more serious problem.

  125. Gab

    Yes, Dot, the whole story, including the bit I enbolded for you that clears shows the practise is far more prevalent in the community thant you seem to want to believe. Or perhaps it’s just easier to bury your head in the sand.

  126. .

    In addition there will always been employers seeking cheap labor for farms. They will front the 50k to migrants, and these migrants could end up in debt bondage while struggling to pay back the debt as they earn a pittance.

    This is paranoid left wing lunacy which is not possible under the policy. Those who have read it would realise this. They must provide means and the debt can be paid like HECS.

    Why you decided to vilify farmers I’m really baffled. You also don’t understand contract law, freedom to contract etc.

    You are just making shit up in lieu of your stupidity or poisonous dislike of the LDP.

    Hmm yes Matthew I’m sure if they do shearing work they’ll struggle for about six months.

    You really have no idea for someone who says they’re well traveled.

  127. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342179, posted on June 10, 2014 at 8:20 pm
    1. So, is it the responsibility of Australia to prevent FGM by admitting immigrants from countries that practise FGM?
    Matthew has nowhere said a police state is necessary. He asks why the problem should be brought here in the first place.
    How do you say laws against FGM can be effectively policed.

    2. So, if it happened to only one girl, for cultural and/or religious reasons, it wouldn’t be a “massive problem”?

    I put to you the question that I asked earlier:

    That’s all very emotive. If your concern is with the disgraceful practice, as mine is, then where in the world is the girl most protected from the practice? Here, where it is criminal, or elsewhere, where it is condoned?

    Because, for all your emoting about FGM (which I agree is an utterly disgraceful and vile practice), you don’t seem to give an actual fuck that it occurs. You only seem to care that it is somebody else has to deal with it. It cannot be a question of Australia promoting the practice; we already enjoin it. If you are making an economic argument, then:

    1) referring to the LDP’s immigration (not refugee) program, the high price paid at the dutch auction is likely to attract the kind of secular Muslim who does not practice FGM – people who subscribe to these practices tend to be poor and stupid; and

    2) I submit that any fractional economic disbenefit would be outweighed by our clear benefit in having an up-front paying, motivated class of entrepreneurial migrant in our country; and

    3) our cultural practices and legal framework have a normative effect upon citizens here – it is not as if cultural traffic is all one way. The practice is a crime. Matthew agrees that it indeed rarely happens here. Other practices that rarely occur include murder, rape and so forth. You can’t adjudge individuals guilty of a crime they did not commit purely because they come from a country in which others practice it. They do want to leave, after all, and are willing to pay handsomely for the privilege.

    In the same way as the the burqa argument has proceeded, you are being dishonest. You pretend that you want to ban the burqa because of the threat of crime: but this is not true; you can point to scant few examples of criminal activity. It’s like pointing to gun violence here and arguing that we should exclude people from Honduras, Brazil or the United States. Your formal objections can be satisfied if as I propose, businesses are free to discriminate and police and airport officials are free to demand that individuals remove face coverings. But again, this is not your real objection.

    Likewise, for all the moral sermonising about FGM, you don’t give an actual fuck about it occurring elsewhere. So it’s not a moral argument. The practice is a crime here, and will remain so. If it is indeed practiced, then you can be sure that second generation victims, many of whom will be secularists, will lead the charge to stamp it out culturally. They will have the overwhelming support of the community, and the criminal justice system. They cannot expect that in the countries that they came from. So, if you actually care as you protest, then this is the only moral course. So far as the economic argument goes, this is weak too. For there are, as Dot points out, 400,000 Muslims here already, and the crime is very rare. So the problem already has to be managed. Neither the moral nor economic problems raised by the practice can, therefore, be your real objection.

    You are being dishonest. This is just so much hysteria which you are using to dress up your illiberal anti-Muslim sectarianism.

  128. tomix

    I take back what I said about low IQ illegal immigrants. It seems that low IQ LDP members are the more serious problem.

    Possibly the LDPs sentimental policies are trawling for low I.Q. voters, Matthew?

  129. .

    No Gab, he told them to lie, I’m not saying he didn’t. You just don’t know how prevalent it is.

    Two cases in 10 years Gab. AFAIK the original amendment to the Crimes Act 1900 was introduced in 1994.

    I assume it is more than two but it is still rare.

  130. .

    tomix
    #1342341, posted on June 10, 2014 at 9:59 pm
    I take back what I said about low IQ illegal immigrants. It seems that low IQ LDP members are the more serious problem.

    Possibly the LDPs sentimental policies are trawling for low I.Q. voters, Matthew?

    You lied about income tax and now matthew is making up what the LDP policy is so he can write about his left wing, delusional theories about debt stricken bonded servants competing with the native born wage earners of Australia.

    You’re an unapologetic liar motivated by hatred of libertarianism.

  131. Gab

    He told them to lie about how prevalent it is.

    Two reported cases does not mean there are no others which remain unreported.

    You assume it is more than two but have no way of knowing if it is rare.

    I remember reading a while back about 100′s of cases of FGM being performed in Australian public hospitals, notably in NSW, under the guise of something else. It was very quickly hushed up by the media. If i can find the article I will post it here.

  132. tomix

    Aristogeiton:
    1) referring to the LDP’s immigration (not refugee) program, the high price paid at the dutch auction is likely to attract the kind of secular Muslim who does not practice FGM – people who subscribe to these practices tend to be poor and stupid;

    Look at Gab’s link. The first ever case in Australia involved the wife and 2 daughters of a G.P..

  133. Demosthenes

    3) our cultural practices and legal framework have a normative effect upon citizens here – it is not as if cultural traffic is all one way.

    This is a crucially important point that many don’t seem to understand.

    It’s like pointing to gun violence here and arguing that we should exclude people from Honduras, Brazil or the United States.

    Or pointing at crime and arguing that we should exclude men, who commit most of it.

  134. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Mk50 at 8.32.

    + 1 from Lizzie.
    I’ve always thought I was a bit of a Libertarian at heart, but does agreeing with Mk50 now turn me into an Imperialist (wot he sez he is, in general, over the years, when challenged)?
    Or maybe I am just a Conservative, to which I add that I don’t always feel like one.
    Tiz a puzzlement, as I am definitely no longer a Leftie.

  135. tomix

    Aristogeiton;

    Likewise, for all the moral sermonising about FGM, you don’t give an actual fuck about it occurring elsewhere.

    It’s none of my business if it’s occurring elsewhere, let alone the business of the Australian Gov’t.

    If you want to travel to, say, Egypt, to campaign against it, that’s your business.

    I’m saying the Australian Gov’t ought not import this problem with it’s eyes closed.

  136. Matthew

    1) referring to the LDP’s immigration (not refugee) program, the high price paid at the dutch auction is likely to attract the kind of secular Muslim who does not practice FGM – people who subscribe to these practices tend to be poor and stupid;

    You realise that you just called 97% of Somalis poor and stupid, right? Even when I spoke of low IQ illegal immigrants I was only thinking along the lines of about 10% to 15%.

    Matthew agrees that it indeed rarely happens here.

    I conceded that it is non-existent practice among the mainstream Australian community. It is likely widespread among communities that consider it to be a sacred religious or cultural practice.

  137. Yobbo

    Look at Gab’s link. The first ever case in Australia involved the wife and 2 daughters of a G.P..

    Who, coincidentally, probably had his immigration application fast-tracked under the current system.

  138. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1342369, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:13 pm
    1) referring to the LDP’s immigration (not refugee) program, the high price paid at the dutch auction is likely to attract the kind of secular Muslim who does not practice FGM – people who subscribe to these practices tend to be poor and stupid;

    You realise that you just called 97% of Somalis poor and stupid, right? Even when I spoke of low IQ illegal immigrants I was only thinking along the lines of about 10% to 15%.

    I didn’t say that they were retarded, did I?

  139. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Which makes me think that these womenfolk are essentially culturally brainwashed

    And sexually crippled. Let’s not forget what that can do to people.

  140. Demosthenes

    The link I gave earlier is very informative. For example, I didn’t know there were four types of FGM. The last includes practices that appear less harmful than circumcision. It’s also a relief to know that the worst kind is only used in 15% of cases (in Africa, where it is most prevalent).

    I am NOT suggesting that we should treat FGM like circumcision, but it’s good to introduce some light into all this heat.

  141. Aristogeiton

    Aristogeiton
    #1342335, posted on June 10, 2014 at 9:57 pm
    [...]
    1) referring to the LDP’s immigration (not refugee) program, the high price paid at the dutch auction is likely to attract the kind of secular Muslim who does not practice FGM – people who subscribe to these practices tend to be poor and stupid

    This is actually wrong, at least in some cases. See:

    Female Genital Mutiliation/Cutting: A Statistical Analysis (2006), UNICEF, pp. 12-13.

  142. tomix

    Who, coincidentally, probably had his immigration application fast-tracked under the current system.

    But the LDPs Sergeant Schultz “I know nothiiiing” policy would have excluded him. Is that what you’re saying?

  143. Yobbo

    But the LDPs Sergeant Schultz “I know nothiiiing” policy would have excluded him. Is that what you’re saying?

    No, I’m saying that people are criticising the LDP’s policy because it would “let in muslims”. Just pointing out that plenty of muslims already get in under the current policy.

  144. Aristogeiton

    Interestingly (from the above link):

    “The data in Nigeria may reflect a proportionately higher FGM/C prevalence among Christian women, who tend to belong to the richer quintiles”.

    This is a cultural, not a religious practice.

  145. tomix

    Demosthenes:

    I am NOT suggesting that we should treat FGM like circumcision, but it’s good to introduce some light into all this heat.

    Circumcise a girl? Are you a nut?

  146. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342391, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:26 pm
    Demosthenes:

    I am NOT suggesting that we should treat FGM like circumcision, but it’s good to introduce some light into all this heat.

    Circumcise a girl? Are you a nut?

    Dammit man, are you ever honest?

  147. Fisky

    It is likely widespread among communities that consider it to be a sacred religious or cultural practice.

    What I love about the FGM debate is how the Left think it is more PC to label it a racial practice (they use the euphemism “tribal” of course, but we all know the image they are trying to create with that euphemism – half-naked uncivilised black people) rather than a religious practice, as if it were in some way less offensive to tar an ethnic group with a common ancestry instead of a religion.

    The real purpose of this bait and switch is to take the heat out of conservative objections to FGM, and I guess the Left think that if they throw some red meat at conservatives by using harsh language like “barbaric tribal practices” then that will placate conservatives and the issue will die without reflecting badly on Muslims, who are the Left’s pets and the eternal trump card in victim poker.

  148. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342367, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:11 pm
    Aristogeiton;

    Likewise, for all the moral sermonising about FGM, you don’t give an actual fuck about it occurring elsewhere.

    It’s none of my business if it’s occurring elsewhere, let alone the business of the Australian Gov’t.

    Right, so we’ve established that.

  149. tomix

    No, I’m saying that people are criticising the LDP’s policy because it would “let in muslims”. Just pointing out that plenty of muslims already get in under the current policy.

    Who has said that? Bring up the quote.

  150. Fisky

    http://taboojive.com/female-circumcision-man-myths-and-mutilation/

    In certain tribal societies, women who are not circumcised are not considered “clean”, even enough to carry water or handle the food. It is also believed, the clitoris is a “male” body part; and that by removing the clitoris, it will also remove the sexual desires that would distract the woman from being a good mother. It is also believed that the clitoris is dangerous if it touches the baby’s head during childbirth. In these tribal countries, female circumcision is not elective, and to not be “cut” would ostracize them from the tribe, a fate worse than death.

    WTF is a “tribal country”???

  151. tomix


    This is a cultural, not a religious practice.


    At last. Now, why is Australia bringing people here from countries that practise FGM? And why does the LDP want to continue this stupidity?

  152. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1342393, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:27 pm
    It is likely widespread among communities that consider it to be a sacred religious or cultural practice.

    What I love about the FGM debate is how the Left think it is more PC to label it a racial practice (they use the euphemism “tribal” of course, but we all know the image they are trying to create with that euphemism – half-naked uncivilised black people) rather than a religious practice, as if it were in some way less offensive to tar an ethnic group with a common ancestry instead of a religion.

    Is that why Nigerian Christians do it?

  153. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342401, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    This is a cultural, not a religious practice.

    At last. Now, why is Australia bringing people here from countries that practise FGM? And why does the LDP want to continue this stupidity?

    Rest of the criticism remains valid, scant which you have responded to.

  154. Gab

    Now, why is Australia bringing people here from countries that practise FGM? And why does the LDP want to continue this stupidity?

    Tomix I doubt the LDP is focusing any religious group, let alone a cult, as a basis to gain entry to Australia.

    On the upside, there is always the hope that people who arrive here will become more educated, liberated, less oppressed and see that they do not have to continue the FGM ritual as Australian society and laws oppose this practice. Of course if the laws are not implemented due to “culutural” sensitivities and the muslims continue to be unaware that it is against the law and harsh penalties will be exacted, then nothing will change.

    I notice also in the story linked above the father of the two children is not going to stand trial for the FGM his daughters suffered. One wonders why.

  155. Fisky

    Is that why Nigerian Christians do it?

    Oh I’m sure they do it for “tribal” reasons too, just like when they’re boiling missionaries and yelling primitive incantations like “bongo bongo bongo!!”

    /left-wing anthropology

  156. Fisky

    The Leftist FGM shuffle:

    1) Somebody criticises FGM
    2) Furiously blame black people for FGM
    3) Change the subject

  157. Gab

    Is that why Nigerian Christians do it?

    Earlier, Aristo explained FGM is not a religious practice but a cultural one – except for when it comes to Christians.

  158. tomix

    Gab:

    Tomix I doubt the LDP is focusing any religious group, let alone a cult, as a basis to gain entry to Australia.

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea to exclude both migrants and asylum seekers from FGM practising countries from residence in Australia on the grounds that it is not the Australian Govts business to prevent or prosecute FGM and Australians don’t want it happening here?

  159. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342412, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:45 pm
    Is that why Nigerian Christians do it?

    Earlier, Aristo explained FGM is not a religious practice but a cultural one – except for when it comes to Christians.

    Lies and utter bullshit Gab.

  160. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342417, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm
    Gab:

    Tomix I doubt the LDP is focusing any religious group, let alone a cult, as a basis to gain entry to Australia.

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea to exclude both migrants and asylum seekers from FGM practising countries from residence in Australia on the grounds that it is not the Australian Govts business to prevent or prosecute FGM and Australians don’t want it happening here?

    And men, and Brazilians and Hondourans; and pre-emptively jail Aborigines.

  161. Gab

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea to exclude both migrants and asylum seekers from FGM practising countries from residence in Australia on the grounds that it is not the Australian Govts business to prevent or prosecute FGM and Australians don’t want it happening here?

    What would be better is to educate these proposed immigrants before they arrive here that FGM is illegal.

    IIRC, David Leyonhjelm suggested that the preferred immigrants under his policy were preferably from countries with similar values to our own, such as UK, Canada and Japan.

  162. Gab

    Lies and utter bullshit Gab.

    Yes, I know you’re doing it yet again.

    You said that FGM was not a religious practice so muslims that carry this out were not doing so for religious reasons but cultural ones.

    And then you snipe in about Nigerians practising FGM but clearly state “Christians”.

  163. tomix

    How do you educate people out of a practice of maybe 50 or 100 generations duration. The practice and the culture must be practically one.

  164. Nicholas E

    What would be better is to educate these proposed immigrants before they arrive here that FGM is illegal.

    Indeed, education is the key!!!!

    As they say in the classics: “inside every FGM is a Aristogeiton”.

  165. tomix

    And again, why should the Australian Gov’t take responsibility for a problem by knowingly importing it?

  166. Cold-Hands

    I notice also in the story linked above the father of the two children is not going to stand trial for the FGM his daughters suffered. One wonders why.

    He wasn’t aware of “secret woman’s business”?

    You must remember that Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s father forbade his wife from having his daughters mutilated but that the grandmother arranged for it to be performed when he was imprisoned.

  167. Gab

    Ah yes, thanks, Cold-Hands.

  168. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342426, posted on June 10, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    Lies and utter bullshit Gab.

    Yes, I know you’re doing it yet again.

    You said that FGM was not a religious practice so muslims that carry this out were not doing so for religious reasons but cultural ones.

    And then you snipe in about Nigerians practising FGM but clearly state “Christians”.

    This is from the UNICEF report, which I linked to above (p. 13). Now follow closely, because this requires a total of two links in a chain of reasoning. FGM is practiced in Nigeria. It is prevalent among Muslims and Christians. It follows that the practice is unlikely to be explicable by reference to the practising individual’s religious faith. From the same report (p. 10):

    “While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion were available [...] Muslim population groups are more likely to practice FGM/C than Christian groups. In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in [... three...] the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.”

  169. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1342428, posted on June 10, 2014 at 11:01 pm
    [...]
    As they say in the classics: “inside every FGM is a Aristogeiton”.

    I’ll bet that sounded better in your head.

  170. Nicholas E

    I’ll bet that sounded better in your head.

    Society is a racial construct.

  171. tomix

    . In six of the countries where data on religion were available [...] Muslim population groups are more likely to practice FGM/C than Christian groups. In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in [... three...] the prevalence is greater among Christian groups

    So, Aristogeiton- are you on board with excluding people from these 14 countries from settling in Australia because of their incompatible cultural practices?

  172. Gab

    How do you educate people out of a practice of maybe 50 or 100 generations duration. The practice and the culture must be practically one.

    You don’t.

    You educate them that in this country the practice is considered vile and inhumane and that’s why we have laws against it. That’s about all that can be done and yet even that is not being done. Where are all the celebrity/sports stars-stacked advertisements against FGM in this country? Like they do with their no violence against women ads on radio and TV? Where are their ads similar to those ads against child abuse? For Muslims, FGM is not considered violence against women nor it is deemed child abuse. If we as a society do not reinforce the position against FGM, then any wonder muslims think it’s all perfectly reasonable to carry on the FGM practice here.

    Of course, implementing the law has to be done and no back-down for sentencing should be tolerated. I will be interested to see what happens to those persons charged with FGM when they come to trial on June 20th. Will the judge slap them on the wrist and let them off becuase a lawyer has cited “cultural” reasons? That would be illogical of course since anti-FGM laws were introduced because of cultural norms that were imported into Australian society. A back-down would send the message that we really don’t mean the anti-FGM laws need to be obeyed.

    I hope it’s not a lefty judge that will preside over the case.

  173. Gab

    Yes, yes, Aristo, you cited a report and then snarked about Christians. So it’s a religious practice when it’s performed by Copts ( and make no mistake, it is rare) but it’s a cultural practice when performed by Muslims, according to you.

  174. Nicholas E

    You educate them that in this country the practice is considered vile and inhumane and that’s why we have laws against it. That’s about all that can be done…

    No, not letting the barbarians in in the first place is ‘all that can be done’. Then ‘lefty judges’ will have no cases on which to preside, and you will have no points on to which to bitch, though perhaps that’s your point.

  175. Fisky

    You educate them that in this country the practice is considered vile and inhumane and that’s why we have laws against it. That’s about all that can be done and yet even that is not being done.

    But that ties up our court system and is expensive. Also, the chances of people migrating from FGM countries not being net welfare takers are low. It is better to restrict the number of visas we offer to those countries as far as is possible.

  176. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342450, posted on June 10, 2014 at 11:22 pm
    Yes, yes, Aristo, you cited a report and then snarked about Christians. So it’s a religious practice when it’s performed by Copts ( and make no mistake, it is rare) but it’s a cultural practice when performed by Muslims, according to you.

    This is utter bullshit. I suppose that ‘reasoning’ which consists of anything more than shouting ipse dixit and then polluting your pants in self-congratulation is beyond you.

    While I am an atheist, I have read the good book once in full, the gospels five times and the new testament twice in entirety. Christians, and particularly those in western countries, are the salt of the earth, and the teachings of Christ contain the best moral precepts in any religious text. You are a pathetic disgrace asserting that I meant to cast any aspersions upon people of the Christian faith.

  177. Gab

    It is better to restrict the number of visas we offer to those countries as far as is possible.

    that is what Leyonhjelm said, yes. I was being far more generous in looking at the problem from a different angle.

  178. Gab

    Sorry, hit sent accidentally. that is what Leyonhjelm said, yes. I was looking at the problem from a different angle. Dealing with educating applicants before they immigrate here and dealing with the fgm issue for those who are already here.

  179. Gab

    Go thou and sin no more, Aristo. You are forgiven.

  180. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1342446, posted on June 10, 2014 at 11:18 pm
    [...]
    Of course, implementing the law has to be done and no back-down for sentencing should be tolerated. I will be interested to see what happens to those persons charged with FGM when they come to trial on June 20th. Will the judge slap them on the wrist and let them off becuase a lawyer has cited “cultural” reasons? That would be illogical of course since anti-FGM laws were introduced because of cultural norms that were imported into Australian society. A back-down would send the message that we really don’t mean the anti-FGM laws need to be obeyed.

    In my home state ‘cultural factors’ are only explicitly related to sentencing of Indigenous offenders. I know that a similar clause was removed less than a decade ago (?) in the Commonwealth sentencing laws. I would think that there would be a general deterrence which would result from a harsh sentence, which is a relevant factor. Equality under the law means, in my view, no special treatment because you come from some place that practices barbarism or your religion demands it.

  181. Aristogeiton

    Equality under the law means, in my view, no special treatment because you come from some place that practices barbarism or your religion demands it.

    And it follows, there are too many criminal laws. Less liberty-crushing laws, and enforce the ones left thanks.

  182. tomix

    Aristogeiton @ 11.32pm:

    While I am an atheist, I have read the good book once in full, the gospels five times

    Three cheers for you.

    And men, and Brazilians and Hondourans; and pre-emptively jail Aborigines.

    You’re attacking Aborigines now, but supporting FGM practising cultures. A bit cheap, don’t you think?

  183. Matthew

    You don’t.

    You educate them that in this country the practice is considered vile and inhumane and that’s why we have laws against it.

    If the educational succeeds then some practitioners of FGM may not inflict FGM on the next generation, but it is unlikely to eliminate FGM because many women that have had FGM performed on them do not want to believe that they are somehow damaged, which limits the effectiveness of if anti FGM information. No one wants to believe that their family has engaged in evil or immoral religious or cultural practices.

    In the context of continuous immigration from FGM practising countries, the informational campaign will probably be fighting a losing battle.

    If on the other hand the informational campaign fails to convince the majority of FGM practitioners then Australia is left with an aggrieved minority that feels that it’s sacred religious or cultural practices are under threat, and may act out in other anti-social ways.

    Isn’t this kind of risk taking completely unnecessary? Why put ourselves through this? Surely there are immigrants to be had that don’t carry this kind of baggage.

    This is a preventable evil. Lets prevent it.

  184. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1342453, posted on June 10, 2014 at 11:25 pm
    You educate them that in this country the practice is considered vile and inhumane and that’s why we have laws against it. That’s about all that can be done…

    No, not letting the barbarians in in the first place is ‘all that can be done’. Then ‘lefty judges’ will have no cases on which to preside, and you will have no points on to which to bitch, though perhaps that’s your point.

    You’re the white supremacist from page 6. Fuck you and fuck off.

  185. tomix

    The LDP shills on here are so PC about other cultures, they could attack the Australian Greens policies from the left.

  186. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342483, posted on June 10, 2014 at 11:51 pm
    [...]
    And men, and Brazilians and Hondourans; and pre-emptively jail Aborigines.

    You’re attacking Aborigines now, but supporting FGM practising cultures. A bit cheap, don’t you think?

    I’m using your logic. It is an empiric fact that Aborigines commit violent crimes at a rate staggeringly higher than the general community (the reasons for which are complex). You want to pre-emptively adjudge the guilt of people from certain countries, or at least use economic arguments based on their risk of future criminal offending to deny them entry (you’ve admitted you don’t give an actual fuck whether the practice continues where it is condoned). Why not jail all Aborigines? The crime rate would go down?

  187. tomix

    The point you’re missing is that Aborigines are native to this country.

    Why do you seem to believe that Australia must be a redeemer of the rest of the world’s problems?

    Where did we vote to take on that responsibility?

  188. tomix

    Use economic arguments? Why not use your brain, you fucking loon.

  189. Nicholas E

    You’re the white supremacist from page 6. Fuck you and fuck off.

    You’re the race denialist from marxistville.

    Surprised your lefty handlers haven’t called you off yet.

  190. Yobbo

    eternal trump card in victim poker

    Poker doesn’t have trump cards :( I think you are thinking of Euchre.

  191. Yobbo

    http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2011/05/30/the-new-minority-that-people-love-to-hate/

    Smoking net health costs: $318 million per year in 2004/2005.

    Smoking excise revenue: $5.2 billion.

    16 times more revenue raised than costs incurred. And since 2004/2005 the rate of tobacco excise has increased.

  192. Yobbo

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-01/humphreyssmoking/2739638

    So the next best thing might be to set the tax rate to cover the marginal health costs of smokers. The logic seems fool-proof… until you realise that smokers already pay over 16 times their marginal health costs in tobacco tax. The government’s National Drug Strategy report estimated net health costs of $318.4 million per year in 2004/05 (this may be an overestimate as it does not count the savings from dead smokers not getting the pension). In the same year the tobacco excise was $5,237 million.

    Since then, tobacco excise rates have increased by 50 per cent, from $0.22 per cigarette up to $0.33 per cigarette.

  193. Yobbo

    Shit last 2 posts in the wrong thread. Mods please delete.

  194. Fisky

    Poker doesn’t have trump cards :(

    I was never any good at these games, anyway!

  195. Matthew

    OK, I read the Facebook thread linked by Yobbo.

    Connor Whittle is full on intellectually challenged. Reminds me of someone here.

  196. A Lurker

    I don’t normally read Menzies House, but a year or two ago I followed a link to an article there which I’ve endeavoured to rediscover, but can’t. My memory is hazy at the best of times, but from what I recollect, the article argued that Australia should be drawing its immigrants from countries with a correspondingly low crime rate here in Australia. I think an example being – if immigrants from Country ‘A’ exhibited high crime rates here in Australia, then future immigration from Country ‘A’ would be curtailed until the crime rates fell. Likewise for other countries where immigrants/refugees have subsequently played up, committed crimes, or otherwise became more trouble than they were worth.

    This method (if properly exercised) would hopefully stop a lot of cultural practices like FGM and honour killings, and if people wanted family reunion, but the rules stated that we’re no longer drawing immigrants from Country ‘A’, then it would be up to the people from that particular community to police themselves in order for their country to be rescinded from the no-immigrant list.

    Anyway, it seemed to make sense to me, and could be workable if the political will was present to enforce it.

  197. Blogstrop

    Might work, lurker, but they’d have to admit that some things are crimes rather than “cultural norms”.

  198. Combine_Dave

    If the educational succeeds then some practitioners of FGM may not inflict FGM on the next generation, but it is unlikely to eliminate FGM because many women that have had FGM performed on them do not want to believe that they are somehow damaged, which limits the effectiveness of if anti FGM information. No one wants to believe that their family has engaged in evil or immoral religious or cultural practices

    As an individual I am not a fan of policies that discriminate based on race. Quick question; don’t most migrants need to go through some form of medical screening?

    Couldn’t this process then be used to exclude the few migrants who have received FGM already (as statistically speaking these ones are likely to inflict FGM onto their own children whether in oz or not).

  199. Yobbo

    It would probably be effective but it would also be seen as punishing the victim.

  200. Combine_Dave

    the article argued that Australia should be drawing its immigrants from countries with a correspondingly low crime rate here in Australia.

    According to various sources the top three sources for migrants to Australia are UK, India and China (in that order). What’s the crime rate in the UK when compared to Australia? Frequency of gang rapes in India as compared to crimes committed in Australia by Indians? I am not convinced this is a good metric, unless you’re happy for Australia’s immigration to consist solely of South East Asians ^^

  201. Combine_Dave

    It would probably be effective but it would also be seen as punishing the victim

    Because it effectively would be :(

    It’s hard to see how this practise could be effectively prevented, esp if the state police and health systems turn a blind eye.

  202. Combine_Dave

    The point you’re missing is that Aborigines are native to this country.

    Why do you seem to believe that Australia must be a redeemer of the rest of the world’s problems?

    I don’t think we should emulate the stultified behaviour of Australia’s first inhabitants.

    There’s a big wide world out there and Australia needs to engage with it both by allowing free trade, free flows of capital and (with some restrictions be it an immigration levy, skills points test or investment) a largely free influx of people. Although while we have a large welfare state to entice economic migrants to our shores we need to retain OSB.

  203. A Lurker

    Dave – the Indians in Australia have not had a good track record when it comes to crime. There have been quite a few incidents of Indian taxi drivers taking advantage of young Australian women who were usually under the influence whilst in their cabs and were subsequently raped, or sexually interfered with by the drivers.

    Under that exclusion rule – we’d get no more immigrants from India until those that were here cleaned up their act.

  204. tomix

    Combine Dave:

    There’s a big wide world out there and Australia needs to engage with it both by allowing free trade, free flows of capital and (with some restrictions be it an immigration levy, skills points test or investment) a largely free influx of people

    No other country bar the U.K. does this. It hasn’t worked out well there and it won’t work any better here.

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea for Australia to officially adopt a reality based attitude to alien cultures rather than the LDPs “We’ll let you in for $50,000, deny you welfare for 10+ years, and if you don’t obey all the rules attached, we’ll deport you?

    That policy is a guarantee of detention centres, even more police surveillance, and endless engineered political strife.

  205. Notafan

    A policy that works better for young single males, which I think a $50,000 entry tax might do is probably going to lead to an increase in crime if there is a correlation between young single men and crime.
    An immigration policy that encourages intact nuclear families would be better in my mind to get people who are going to commit to Australia.
    They would have to have sufficient earning capacity to support their families and would be involved in the Australian community through school etc.
    I do think the fgm problem is understated here. I would be surprised if the incontinence clinics at all the major children’s hospitals in.Australia didn’t have a significant number of FGM victims as patients which is where education is possible.

  206. Combine_Dave

    Sure, but you’d be unfairly preventing highly skilled SAP and other IT experts from entering Australia on the basis of behaviour from a few bad egg taxi drivers.

    Under your proposal surely we’d prevent Americans from entering Australia due to their rampant gun crime rates.

    Not sure either scenario would be ideal.

  207. tomix

    The FGM problem isn’t talked about here. If it was, the reality would have to be similar to the U.K., where midwives in the major hospitals report anecdotally that the rate among women of Pakistani ethnicity approaches 100%.
    And that’s despite 2 generations being born in the U.K., and the practice being illegal there.

  208. .

    “I think”
    “probably”
    “if”
    “in my mind”
    “I do think”
    “I would be surprised”
    “didn’t have”
    “is possible”

    I acknowledge that members and supporters of the LDP have the onus on them to convince others that their policies are reasonable, but the standards people have for critiquing the policies aren’t very robust.

  209. tomix

    You don’t understand the problem, Combine Dave. The culture of these people is alien. Until c.100 years ago, some Indians were sacrificing virgins in the village square every Friday lunchtime.

    Gun crime isn’t rampant in the U.S., despite what the MSM would have you believe.

    Where crime is rampant is the third world, where it is a way of life.

    Which can b e solved, according to the LDP, by the payment of $50,000 to our Federal Gov’t.

  210. .

    Matthew
    #1342560, posted on June 11, 2014 at 1:09 am
    OK, I read the Facebook thread linked by Yobbo.

    Connor Whittle is full on intellectually challenged. Reminds me of someone here.

    No Matthew.

    You are lying again.

    You lied about any loan scheme being income contingent. You lied about wage rates in agriculture (which was completely ridiculous). You lied about the freedom to contract in Australia. You lied about private parties fronting cash and then enforcing an invalid contract.

    You lie about the LDP policy because you don’t have a good argument against it.

  211. Combine_Dave

    No other country bar the U.K. does this. It hasn’t worked out well there and it won’t work any better here.

    No other country has a skilled immigration program or investment migration program?

    I am not across the UK’s policies in this regards but if they are bringing in the unskilled, and the welfare dependent then they are doing it wrong.

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea for Australia to officially adopt a reality based attitude to alien cultures rather than the LDPs “We’ll let you in for $50,000, deny you welfare for 10+ years, and if you don’t obey all the rules attached, we’ll deport you?

    I don’t agree that it should be based on culture. I am not sure a heap of new entrants who believe in western values, democracy and their right to welfare, from the old country nor from southern and central europe coming to join our own moochers would be the way to go.

    Although I agree it is possible that the $50,000 and “you-are-in” (minus welfare/citizenship) plan of the LDP may provide to have practical issues and unintended consequences. Ie; if you get too many applicants and raise the bar too high (say the entrant levy is raised to the current investor payment $5mill) than that will a) drive away the current skilled immigrants we do enjoy (currently majority from Uk, India and China and b) will increase the incentive for potential entrants to simply lose their papers and come as make believe refugees, an issue that would be exaggerated by the ending of OSB.

    That policy is a guarantee of detention centres, even more police surveillance, and endless engineered political strife.

    In terms of detention centres, thanks to the failed policies of Labor we have that now. Not sure where the police surveillance and political strife is coming from?

    Most of the Chinese and Indian immigrants I am familiar with are not that interested or understanding of Australian politics (to be fair many Chinese won’t adopt citizenship as to do so means they need to give up their homeland). The Uk ones on the other hand, while equally ignorance on local matters are quite happy to continue voting for Labor (or worse) in a bid to “stick it up the torries”. Look at Gillard’s family FFS or Dougie Cameron!

  212. .

    Until c.100 years ago, some Indians were sacrificing virgins in the village square every Friday lunchtime.

    Churchill sorted them out. Probably a bit earlier than 100 years now.

    As we could in remote Aboriginal communities if we ignored lobby groups that desire continuing abuse of women and children.

    It’s a law and order issue, and has nothing to do with origin of the parties.

  213. tomix


    It’s a law and order issue, and has nothing to do with origin of the parties.


    IOW, yo are saying culture doesn’t determine behaviour, unless you’re an Aborigine, and in any case the solution is to hire more police and give them more powers?

    And you call others racists and fascists? A projection on your part, Dot?

  214. .

    Nicholas E
    #1342502, posted on June 11, 2014 at 12:13 am
    You’re the white supremacist from page 6. Fuck you and fuck off.

    You’re the race denialist from marxistville.

    Surprised your lefty handlers haven’t called you off yet.

    I was going to write something ridiculous and realised given that we have a racial supremacist trolling us, it would be superfluous.

    The funny thing is when the race supremacists of different races band together. “We’ve united so that we never have to put up with each other!”

    Really Nick, no one likes racial supremacists. Hitler was such a fucking loser and a pervert.

  215. .

    IOW, yo are saying culture doesn’t determine behaviour, unless you’re an Aborigine, and in any case the solution is to hire more police and give them more powers?

    Clearly remote Aboriginal communities where leftists have agitated for no policing of violence, rested on the noble savage myth, will have an errant culture.

    Clearly the leftists, not myself, are racist. Unless you would like to side with them tomix to justify your overused and comical use of the term “projection”.

    You’re projecting a lot of projection, BTW.

  216. tomix

    Dot:
    Can you define what is and is not an “errant culture”

    And your solution is a Police State, isn’t it?

  217. .

    tomix: Read Little Children are Sacred if you want to find out what I am describing.

    I just noted it simply requires equal protection under the law.

    This “Police state or bedlam” argument you and “Matthew” have raised more than once is stupid bloody nonsense.

  218. Matthew

    This “Police state or bedlam” argument you and “Matthew” have raised more than once is stupid bloody nonsense.

    There is another choice that you are not allowed, and thus it is you creating an artificial binary choice of police state or bedlam.

    The other choice is not to inflict this one Australia at all.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  219. tomix

    I just want you to answer the question rather than change the subject.

    How do you define an “errant culture”?

  220. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1342703, posted on June 11, 2014 at 8:42 am
    [...]
    There is another choice that you are not allowed, and thus it is you creating an artificial binary choice of police state or bedlam.

    The other choice is not to inflict this one Australia at all.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Your view is more sophisticated than it appeared at first (/sarc). We can either:

    1) discriminate against immigrants from entire countries based upon prognostications about future criminal offending; or

    2) don’t discriminate and have a police state; or

    3) don’t discriminate and in the absence of a police state have bedlam.

    Glad we sorted that out.

  221. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342705, posted on June 11, 2014 at 8:46 am
    I just want you to answer the question rather than change the subject.

    How do you define an “errant culture”?

    As above:

    .
    #1342696, posted on June 11, 2014 at 8:35 am
    tomix: Read Little Children are Sacred if you want to find out what I am describing.

  222. Matthew

    Have you failed to notice that we have a growing police state infrastructure to police received immigrants that are now deemed a potential threat of terrorism, and yet none of the immigration from countries that supplying the terrorism has been curtailed.

    The state will require and ever increasing share of the nation’s wealth to police this situation. It makes citizens mistrust each other. Why inflict this one Australia? Is there any circumstances at all in which certain categories of immigrant, in aggregate, could be turned away?

  223. Aristogeiton

    Combine_Dave
    #1342659, posted on June 11, 2014 at 7:52 am
    Sure, but you’d be unfairly preventing highly skilled SAP and other IT experts from entering Australia on the basis of behaviour from a few bad egg taxi drivers.

    Under your proposal surely we’d prevent Americans from entering Australia due to their rampant gun crime rates.

    Not sure either scenario would be ideal.

    Here’s the bonus, if you give an actual fuck about FGM occurring (which I do, but tomix admits he does not) then the children of immigrants from these countries are now living in a place in which the practice is legally and culturally abhorred.

  224. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1342710, posted on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 am
    Have you failed to notice that we have a growing police state infrastructure to police received immigrants that are now deemed a potential threat of terrorism, and yet none of the immigration from countries that supplying the terrorism has been curtailed.

    The state will require and ever increasing share of the nation’s wealth to police this situation. It makes citizens mistrust each other. Why inflict this one Australia? Is there any circumstances at all in which certain categories of immigrant, in aggregate, could be turned away?

    So it’s terrorism now? This is a first. Burqa; FGM; terrorism? I can say without I think being incorrect that wealthy migrants (such as those selected by a dutch auction) are unlikely to be Jihadist Islamists.

  225. tomix

    Aristogeiton:

    So you are saying the only problems Australia faces with alien culture concern Aborigines and can be solved by increasing police powers and numbers?

  226. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342719, posted on June 11, 2014 at 9:03 am
    Aristogeiton:

    So you are saying the only problems Australia faces with alien culture concern Aborigines and can be solved by increasing police powers and numbers?

    No you dishonest fuck; I was using Aboriginal crime as an example of the repugnance of your ‘reasoning’. You are a stupid man.

  227. tomix

    Aristogeiton:

    So it’s terrorism now? This is a first. Burqa; FGM; terrorism? I can say without I think being incorrect that wealthy migrants (such as those selected by a dutch auction) are unlikely to be Jihadist Islamists.

    How would you know? Are you omniscient?

  228. Combine_Dave

    You don’t understand the problem, Combine Dave. The culture of these people is alien. Until c.100 years ago, some Indians were sacrificing virgins in the village square every Friday lunchtime.

    And this is relevant now how? I dont recall melb cabbies nor Sydney siders of Indian descend taking part in such sacrifices in Australia in the 2014….

    Is 100% of modern Australian culture with its welfarism, entittlement mentality and Friday night binge drinking and punching on really worth preserving in its entirity for eternity and at the expense of our economic prosperity?

  229. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342719, posted on June 11, 2014 at 9:03 am
    [...]
    So you are saying the only problems Australia faces with alien culture concern Aborigines and can be solved by increasing police powers and numbers?

    The problem of Aboriginal crime can be solved by:

    1) applying the law equally to all; and
    2) economic liberation.

    Since the legal immigration policy of the LDP basically assures (in relation to migrants) the second, and the first is also their policy, I don’t understand what your issue is.

    Not that you’ve read the policy, but you would know if you had that citizenship under the LDP policy is harder to get. Permanent residents, such as the migrants constitute, can be deported for criminal activity.

  230. tomix

    Aboriginal crime, you say? Are they the people shooting up western Sydney, and raping girls and women there whenever they get the chance?

  231. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342729, posted on June 11, 2014 at 9:09 am
    [...]
    How would you know? Are you omniscient?

    Well you are, because you can predict with certainty the rise of a police state, or the occurrence of bedlam and child sacrifice upon certain immigration policy settings.

  232. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342729, posted on June 11, 2014 at 9:09 am
    Aristogeiton:

    So it’s terrorism now? This is a first. Burqa; FGM; terrorism? I can say without I think being incorrect that wealthy migrants (such as those selected by a dutch auction) are unlikely to be Jihadist Islamists.

    How would you know? Are you omniscient?

    http://www.academia.edu/2171515/The_Social_and_Religious_Characteristics_of_Suicide_Bombers_and_Their_Victims

  233. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1342739, posted on June 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
    Aboriginal crime, you say? Are they the people shooting up western Sydney, and raping girls and women there whenever they get the chance?

    Ok, so this is the point at which your credibility reached zero. We’re done here.

  234. tomix


    Is 100% of modern Australian culture with its welfarism, entittlement mentality and Friday night binge drinking and punching on really worth preserving in its entirity for eternity and at the expense of our economic prosperity?

    Shorter Combine Dave:

    Australians are deplorable people. Let’s flood the country with people from a lot of alien cultures and see what happens. And it’ll be good for the economy.

    What could go wrong?

  235. A Lurker

    Have you failed to notice that we have a growing police state infrastructure to police received immigrants that are now deemed a potential threat of terrorism, and yet none of the immigration from countries that supplying the terrorism has been curtailed.

    It is also interesting to note that two of the immigrant groups that have settled in Australia over the last thirty years or so has specific NSW police units dedicated to crimes committed by these two particular ethnic groups – i.e. the Middle-Eastern Organised Crime Squad (MEOCS), and the Asian Crime Squad.

  236. Matthew

    So it’s terrorism now? This is a first. Burqa; FGM; terrorism?

    I’ve never mentioned the burqa. Also note that I never actually single out any group. I talk about crimes like terrorism or FGM. I leave it to you to determine who, if anyone, is doing these things. For example I never mentioned Islam or Muslims in any context, but when I brought FGM up Dot concluded that 400 000 Muslims in Australia were practitioners of FGM. That is not my position, but that is where his prejudice led him.

    The point is that any of these things are purely choice (yes, including the burqa if that’s your thing). You said that the government should not choose culture, and yet that is exactly what the government is doing in making the choice to bring in non-indigeonous (no cracks about Aboriginals please) culture or customs like FGM, or burqa, or whatever. The specifics don’t matter. What matters is that for whatever reason it damages social cohesion, and it is a choice that government makes.

    Why make this choice at the cost of out freedom? The government, in order to police a small segment of the population, is increasingly taking away our freedom and long held traditional tights. And not just in the sphere of terrorism.

    Someone mentioned western Sydney. Because of the rampant witness/victim intimidation by members of certain recent immigrant group the NSW government changed the law to deal with this reality. The result is that it is now very difficult to cross examine a witness/victim in relation to the crime of aggravated sexual assault (rape) or aggravated sexual assault in company (gang rape). It is now a lot harder to defend against a charge of rape.

    Why inflict this on ourselves? Are there no potential migrants with less baggage? As demographics change, will not these migrant groups become more insistent that their traditions (like FGM) be respected?

    This is completely unnecessary and preventable. So why make the choice to continue it?

  237. Combine_Dave

    Why inflict this on ourselves? Are there no potential migrants with less baggage? As demographics change, will not these migrant groups become more insistent that their traditions (like FGM) be respected?

    This is completely unnecessary and preventable. So why make the choice to continue it?

    Thanks to the success of OSB we are not continuing it.

  238. Combine_Dave

    Is 100% of modern Australian culture with its welfarism, entittlement mentality and Friday night binge drinking and punching on really worth preserving in its entirity for eternity and at the expense of our economic prosperity?

    Shorter Combine Dave:

    Culture is not immutable and over time Australia’s anglo-culture has been changing for the worse. Lets not import deplorable people (aka BP) but bring in some productive peeps to arrest this decline. At least it’ll be good for the economy.

    FIFY.

  239. Fisky

    I think Operation Sovereign Borders is an excellent, cheap and humane policy. What do you think?

1 8 9 10

Comments are closed.