Tony Abbott on Muslims: ‘Stop treating them with kid gloves’

Tony Abbott believes Muslims should conform to Australian rules

AUSTRALIANS should stop treating Muslims with kid gloves and those living in our country must conform to our rules, according to Tony Abbott. The former Prime Minister said Australians “pussyfoot around the fact many passages of the Muslim holy book command things that are completely incompatible with modern Western life”.

He also said it was also time we stopped making excuses for other people and there should be one set of rules for all Australians in the piece published in today’s the Daily Telegraph.

“The only safe Jihadi is one who’s been lawfully killed, lawfully imprisoned or thoroughly converted from Islamism,” Mr Abbott said.

The MP also said Australians tended to tolerate behaviour from hard line Muslims that we wouldn’t from other groups.

Speaking on Sunrise this morning Melbourne Radio 3AW’s Tom Elliott agreed the same rules should apply to everyone.

“The issue is not if there are enough rules, it’s that are we prepared to apply the rules we have and apply them equally to everyone and on that, Tony Abbott is correct,” he told Sunrise host Sam Armytage.

However advertising guru Jane Caro said Muslims should confirm to Australian laws and the reality was most already did. But she also said it was important the laws were applied to people equally.

“What we don’t want to do is have different rules for different people nor do we want to go off half-cocked,” she said.

SOURCE



Global cooling hits Australia!

IF you were feeling a little chilly this morning it’s no surprise — it was our coldest start to winter since 1943, with the mercury plummeting to a frosty 2.9C in Adelaide.

Elsewhere in the state it was even colder, with Yunta -4.7C, Renmark -3.2C and Loxton, Snowtown and Murray Bridge -1.9C, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

“We had a cold front move across the state Monday night, Tuesday morning, and that’s brought up a lot of very cold, very dry air from over the Southern Ocean,” a Bureau of Meteorology spokesman told ABC Radio Adelaide.

“Then we had a very strong high pressure system come over the top of the state that gave us light winds and clear skies overnight, allowing the temperature to cool down.”

Fortunately, as soon as the sun came out the temperature quickly climbed.

We can expect a sunny, cloud-free day with a top of 16C today in Adelaide, with similar dry forecasts for the rest of the week.

We probably won’t see any rain until Monday, when a possible shower and 17C is expected.

SOURCE.  My heading above is of course satirical




Social Services Minister Christian Porter defends drug tests for dole recipients

SOCIAL Services Minister Christian Porter has defended a plan to drug test welfare recipients while talking up jobs as “a sacred form of giving”.

In a speech to business groups at Parliament House today, the Minister rejected claims similar programs in the United States and New Zealand proved drug testing welfare recipients was costly and ultimately ineffective.

“In America, one thing that’s clear among the trials of drug testing is that the cohorts of individuals in the welfare systems where testing is applied have lower rates of drug use based on the testings in the wider population,” Mr Porter said.

“Critics of drug testing say that is evidence of failure, supporters say it’s evidence of success,” he said.

In making the case for the government’s welfare reforms, Mr Porter highlighted the massive increase in welfare recipients using drug and alcohol issues as an excuse not to turn up for job interviews and other appointments.

More than 5500 people on welfare now applied for exemptions from appointments for drug and alcohol issues, he said.

That was nearly double the number applying for the exemption five years ago.

There was also a 131 per cent increase in the number of times welfare recipients used that excuse in the last year alone to 4325 instances.

Mr Porter said the trial was “nothing to do with being punitive”.

“There is a lot of ancillary data out there that suggests both that there’s a problem and that there is a clear way in which drug testing can help that problem.

“A person who is unemployed is, based on good data, 2.4 times more likely to have addictive issues with drugs and alcohol — obviously there’s both cause and effect in there.”

“We know absolutely for certain that large numbers of people in the welfare system have barriers to employment which are caused by a drug and alcohol problems.

“I also know as a matter of fact that at the moment we are not doing anywhere near enough to first identify them and secondly assist them.”

Under the government’s proposal for a drug screening trial, welfare recipients who tested positive for drugs once would be placed on a cashless welfare card which could not be used to pay for alcohol.

A second positive test would trigger a health check by a medical professional, who would then design a plan for them to recover from their addiction.

Another measure being implemented is mandatory assessments of whether welfare recipients who applied for exemptions from appointments for drug and alcohol issues were attending or seeking treatment.

During the speech, Mr Porter outlined the government’s plan to overhaul the welfare system to ensure it was growing faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay for it.

He also rejected the notion that some low-income earners may sometimes be worse off working because they could receive a similar amount in welfare payments.

Work gave “dignity, pride and purpose” and was “a sacred form of giving” through an individual’s contribution to the greater good, he said.

“Work is more than money — it is self-worth from self-reliance, it’s friendships, it’s purpose and a meaning in life,” he said.

“All our welfare reforms are about one thing; giving more people more opportunity to grow with the benefits of work.”

SOURCE




Fake asylum seekers still coming

People-smugglers are out of business in Australia. Boats laden with asylum-seekers have stopped ­arriving. Yet Australia’s immigration system is under challenge from within.

Polls late last year point to large numbers of Australians wanting an end to Muslim migration, anywhere from a third to half those surveyed depending on the poll. The irony is that mislabelled “progressives” — Labor, the Greens, refugee activists, immigration lawyers, judges and other decision-makers doling out their own deluded, short-term version of compassion — are responsible for undermining support for ­migration to this country.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is made up of judges, lawyers and others with “expert” knowledge. Some of these AAT members are front and centre in the emasculation of support for Australia’s immigration system. Not even the AAT’s judicial-inspired prolix prose can hide the fact the tribunal has agreed that many asylum-seekers have deliberately lied on visa applications. In simple language, that makes them fake refugees. Yet, over and over again, the AAT has decided to reinstate a visa that has been cancelled by the Immigration Min­ister’s delegate.

Consider these recent cases (specific details cannot be revealed for legal reasons).

The first has already been reported. Asylum-seeker “A” arrived by boat in 2011 and was granted a protection visa the following year claiming it was not safe for him to return to Iran. Once granted a visa, A returned to Iran three times, including to marry under Islamic law. The AAT decided that, even though A kept returning to the country in relation to which he claimed fear of persecution, he was entitled to a protection visa.

The second case, not reported until now, causes more than a raised eyebrow of disbelief. Asylum-seeker “B” claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd, not an Iranian citizen, in fear for his life in Iran. B travelled to Indonesia by plane on what he claimed to be a false Iranian passport. B’s lie came to light when, after he received a protection visa, he applied for a new Iranian passport in Australia and travelled home for a visit. B admitted to the AAT that he told lies on his visa application. He admitted he was an Iranian citizen and that he had a valid Iranian passport, which he destroyed on the advice of people-smugglers in Indonesia.

Despite the lies, B claimed his wife’s conversion to Christianity gave rise to a non-refoulement ­ob­ligation not to return him to Iran. B’s wife claimed a long interest in the Christian faith. The AAT said her religious conversion was not genuine: her conversion to Christianity happened only after the couple were notified that their protection visas were being cancelled for false information. The AAT concluded B had provided incorrect information and had failed to comply with the ­Mig­ration Act. Then the AAT decided, because the couple had children while in Australia, it was in the children’s best interests for the AAT to reinstate B’s protection visa.

In the year to April, the AAT overturned 4389 — or 39 per cent — of visa decisions made by the minister’s delegate. Cold numbers tell only part of the story. Consider this case, which has a certain familiar flavour: asylum-seeker “C” claimed in his protection visa application that he was stateless, was not an Iranian citizen, that he had travelled to Indonesia on a false passport and that a people-smuggler had taken that passport.

C arrived in Australia by boat with no identity documents. Except that C later applied for and received an Iranian passport, which he used to enter and leave Iran once he had a protection visa. The AAT found the inaccurate information C provided undermined the integrity of Australia’s migration program — yet, once again, the AAT reinstated C’s protection visa.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is right to shake his head at these decisions. Consider another case. Asylum-seeker D claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd, not an Iranian citizen, used a false passport to travel to Indonesia and claimed he feared for his safety if returned to Iran. Once D received a protection visa, D obtained a valid Iranian passport, suggesting Iranian citizenship, and travelled to Iran for a visit. The AAT found that D had lied on the visa application, that a protection visa would not have been granted if accurate information had been provided. Yet, the AAT reinstated D’s visa, overturning the cancellation.

Notice the pattern of lies from asylum-seekers? Notice the pattern of decisions from the AAT? It’s a bit rich for the AAT to say asylum-seekers providing false information in visa applications undermine the integrity of Australia’s migration program, only to then reinstate liars’ visas.

The combination of fake refugees and misguided AAT members is a double whammy that undermines the integrity of our migration system.

It’s boringly predictable for the Law Council to slap down the Immigration Minister for being critical of some AAT decisions. No judge, lawyer or other person with apparent special expertise on the AAT is above criticism in a democracy. Outgoing AAT president Duncan Kerr says AAT members are simply applying the law. But which law? Explicit provisions in the Migration Act about providing inaccurate information in a visa application are given short shrift. The unfortunate ­directive to asylum-seekers emerging from AAT decisions is fake it ’til you make it.

The shy members of the AAT can expect increased curiosity about their decisions. Last week in Senate estimates, Immigration Department boss Mike Pezzullo released dynamite information: 335 visa holders are being considered for cancellation. He also set out the scale of previous rorts: since 2014, 278 protection visas have been cancelled. Two-thirds of the cancellations arose from evidence of people travelling back to countries in relation to which persecution was claimed. Another third related to people providing incorrect or false information.

Bleeding-heart faux compassionistas, be they in Labor, the Greens or on the AAT, should try to better understand our history. As a migrant nation, Australia has shown strong support for high rates of immigration and a generous humanitarian intake of refugees per capita.

Support for immigration from Australians is most stable and secure when the Australian government, not repugnant people-smugglers piling people into unsafe boats, determines our ­migration policy.

Profiling Dutton in Fairfax Media newspapers last weekend, Jane Cadzow wrote that “he can sometimes sound like an anti-immigration minister”. Except that it’s not anti-immigration to point out that Australia faces unprecedented security threats from terrorists, extremists and criminals who seek to exploit migration pathways to citizenship for their own ends.

It’s not anti-IMMIGRATION to deport criminals. It’s not anti-immigrant to point out that some asylum-seekers are quick to complete welfare forms but rather slow making visa applications. And it’s not anti-immigration to shake your head at decisions by the AAT that undermine the integrity of our migration system.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here